Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Electricity Demand

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the peak demand for electricity met by the Central Electricity Generating Board during the recent cold weather.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): The most severe weather lasted from 12 January to 19 January. During that time a record peak demand of 47,926 MW was met at 5.30 pm on Monday 12 January. This is an integrated half-hourly figure, and the spot peak reached during the previous 30 minutes was in fact 48,290 MW.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my hon. Friend agree that the record demand increases the case for early orders to be made for power stations? Against the background of deciding which type of power station should be built, does my hon. Friend agree that cheap electricity is of overriding national interest, alongside safety requirements? Does he accept Sir Frank Layfield's comments that nuclear energy will almost certainly be cheaper than energy provided by coal-fired stations?

Mr. Goodlad: The declared net capability of generating plant on the CEGB's system at 31 March last year was 52,101 MW. My hon. Friend may draw his own conclusions from that. In view of my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial position, my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the Sizewell inquiry.

Mr. Powley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is fair to say that without the 16 or 18 per cent. of our electricity that is supplied by nuclear energy the extraordinarily high demand over the recent winter would not have been met and could have led to either a reduction in the power of electricity or, indeed, a cut?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is quite right. Nuclear power stations made an important contribution towards meeting the demand. I congratulate the CEGB's staff on their excellent performance in the face of the severe weather and the record demand. I congratulate also the area board staff who worked in terrible conditions to maintain supplies and overcome the few distribution failures that occurred.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Although I recognise that the Minister wishes to pursue a policy of fulfilling energy demand, I put it to him that if the Government go down

the Sizewell route those of us who have always supported nuclear power will part company on that issue, because the public have no confidence, and the whole future—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question would be better related to a later question.

Coal-Fired Power Stations

Mr. Orme: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the ordering of new coal-fired stations.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what additional coal-fired generating capacity will be ordered during the next three years.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. A lick Buchanan-Smith): My right hon. Friend meets the chairman regularly. Applications for consent to the construction of power stations are a matter for the CEGB, and my right hon. Friend has received no applications for a coal-fired station. If he did, he would give them immediate consideration.

Mr. Orme: The Minister must be aware that informed press reports state that the CEGB urgently needs two coal-fired stations to he ordered at once because of the increasing demand for power. What is the Government's reaction to that? If such stations are ordered, where will they be sited?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. There have been various reports in the press and elsewhere about proposals from the CEGB. Obviously, my right hon. Friend will have to wait until he receives applications before he can consider them. As I stated in my original answer, he will certainly endeavour to deal with them as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Hardy: If an order is to be placed, does the Minister of State accept that it should be placed now, in order to sustain the relevant sectors of British industry? Will he give an assurance that should an application for coal-fired power stations be granted, the coal that will be burnt in them will not be bought from South Africa?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: So long as the CEGB makes an application, the other factors can flow from it, but until an application is made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy it is not, of course, possible to comment.

Mr. Patrick NcNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the disturbingly high level of industrial disputes still current in the coal industry and the worrying political uncertainties facing many overseas oil producers, it would be prudent to place orders for dual-fired stations, certainly for those in the south of England, built near to large oil refineries?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but, as I am sure he realises and acknowledges, we in the United Kingdom are blessed with a wide variety of different sources of energy and it is important that we should make the best use of them. As for coal, of particular significance over the past year has been the enormous improvement in productivity, and that has to be considered as well.

Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the known death rate from producing energy from such sources as coal and oil is vastly higher than it is from nuclear energy? Does this not point in the direction of relying more on nuclear energy in the future? In addition, is not the reliability of supplies from nuclear sources much greater? Those who are employed in the nuclear power industry do not often go on strike. Does that not also strengthen the argument for much greater reliance on nuclear sources than on other sources in the future?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend knows that we are shortly to have a debate on the Sizewell report. Thereafter my right hon. Friend will be taking a decision on these very important matters.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister of State not accept that the CEGB will need about 12,500 MW of additional capacity by the end of the decade? Taking into consideration the planning time and the outcry regarding Sizewell, is it not correct that we should need not two coal-fired power stations but four?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The industry makes its own forecasts and a number of them are discussed publicly and otherwise, but I return to what I said earlier, that if the CEGB wished to go ahead with some of the proposals that it has been discussing it would have to make an application to my right hon. Friend, who would consider it as soon as possible after he received it.

Power Stations (Coal Burn)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the prospects for the expansion of coal burn in power stations in Britain.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In England and Wales the agreement with British Coal announced last June underlined the CEGB's strong commitment to the use of coal, combined with its aim of buying supplies at internationally competitive prices. Responsibility for the Scottish electricity boards rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The best prospects for the expansion of coal burn lie in production by the British coal industry at competitive prices.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that the agreement to which he referred is of very short-term duration? Do the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland know that in my constituency there is an under-utilised coal-fired power station at Kincardine-on-Forth that could be utilised quickly, primarily if the transmission links between the various parts of the United Kingdom were strengthened? Will the Minister give urgent attention to these matters?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I know of his interest in these matters and I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problems with the CEGB seem to be, first, the decision that there should be increased capacity in the south of England and, secondly, the desire to find an almost perfect answer to coal burn? Should not my right hon. Friend be putting pressure on the CEGB for an early decision on future stations in the south of England?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The CEGB has mentioned a number of different sites, which are known, but, as far as I know, no decision has been taken in relation to any particular site. Once the CEGB has taken a decision, no doubt it will make an application to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Benn: Will the Minister assure the House that no South African coal will be used in power stations, in view of the reports of its importation and burning in this country?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to this issue, but I am not aware of the CEGB importing any coal from South Africa.

Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. Friend look at any proposals for increasing coal burn with great care and just a little scepticism as it has yet to be established that British Coal can produce coal at a low and economic world price in the longer term, and that long-term commitments of investment to increase coal burn, when British Coal has not established that it can produce low-cost coal consistently, should be avoided?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is significant that since 1983–84 the output per manshift has risen from 2·43 tonnes to more than 3·5 tonnes. That is a considerable achievement. Obviously, such an achievement helps to make coal a much more competitive fuel for electricity generation. I have no doubt that the electricity industry and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take that into account in due course. However, of course I hope that that improvement is maintained.

Mr. Eadie: Does the Minister agree that the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) about increased coal burn was made on two accounts: first, because there has been record productivity in the mining industry; and secondly, because it is well known that if we were to pursue a policy of renewing power station plant it would be good both for the mining industry and power station manufacturers. At present those industries are hungry for jobs. Does the Minister agree that that is the quickest and most expeditious way of providing jobs and more coal burn?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that it is only since the disruption of the coal industry that this great achievement in productivity has been made. We hope that it is maintained, It is in the best interests of the miners. — I congratulate them on what they have achieved recently — to maintain that productivity and demonstrate that it will continue. That is the best way of ensuring that the electricity industry pays full attention to coal as a source of power generation.

Severn Barrage

Mr. Stern: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to complete and place in the Library the list of organisations and individuals to be consulted in connection with studies into the proposed Severn barrage.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I have today placed copies of the proposed work programme, including the consultation arrangements, in the Libraries of both Houses.

Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on that excellent reply. In advance of our studying the


documents concerned, will my hon. Friend say whether they show how long the proposed studies will take, given the extent of interest in the Severnside area and the fact that, on the one hand, people are fearful of the decision that will be taken, but, on the other, they would like to know fairly soon what it will be?

Mr. Hunt: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's tireless campaign on behalf of his constituents and the campaign of other right hon. and hon. Friends in pressing for the fullest possible consultation. We are dealing with the first two years of a six-year programme, originally adduced by the Severn Tidal Power Group. We are contemplating studies that will last for 18 months, but the programme's objective is to reduce uncertainty about the scheme to the point where it will be possible to make decisions on whether to plan for construction.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend recall, from his days as chairman of Bristol Young Conservatives, when I was a Member of Parliament for that great city, that this project was first raised in the House in 1971? That is now more than 15 years ago. Does he not think that that is long, enough for us to have been to be looking into this project? If his had been in France, the barrage would probably have been built and working 5 years ago.

Mr. Hunt: For many reasons, I have no wish to explore the past with my hon. Friend. What we have now is certainly one of the most extensive and detailed research programmes into tidal energy anywhere in the world. That shows that this Government mean business on the subject of tidal energy, which we believe to be one of the most promising of our renewable energy resources.

Electricity (Nuclear Generation)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of electricity supply in 1986 came from nuclear power.

Mr. Goodlad: Based on provisional figures, some 20 per cent. of the electricity available from the United Kingdom public supply system was provided by nuclear power in 1986.

Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is a relatively small proportion compared with many other countries, including Japan, West Germany and France? Will he further confirm that 26 countries now have significant civil nuclear power programmes? In any debate on Sizewell, should not an important point be that the independent Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has a good track record of ensuring and insisting upon the highest safety standards in British nuclear power stations?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is correct in the first part of his question. He is absolutely right in saying that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate does a good job.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister accept that to proceed with Sizewell risks fracturing the strong public majority support in favour of nuclear power? Is it worth the risk of upsetting that lobby? Is there not a danger that if there were even a minor incident in a PWR station a strong majority against nuclear power may develop, when we are trying to avoid that?

Mr. Goodlad: I note what the hon. Gentleman said. He will appreciate that because of the quasi-judicial position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State I cannot anticipate his decision on Sizewell.

Mr. Hannam: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to refute the allegation that the Government are holding up the report on the linkage of leukaemia with nuclear power stations? Will he also confirm that coal-fired power stations produce more than double the radiation emissions of nuclear stations?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right. The Government would certainly not wish to intervene to hold back the report, which has been sent to the printers. I understand that it took longer than expected because the authors took longer than expected to assemble the material.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has today given a full description of the report, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I understand that a summary of the findings prepared by one of the authors shows that in the CEGB nuclear power stations, taken as a group, no indication of an abnormal pattern for leukaemia was found. On the second part of the question, my hon. Friend is right in saying that in coal-fired power stations the collective committed dose equivalent is about 5 manSieverts per GW year of electricity generated and that for nuclear stations it is less than 2 manSieverts. There is, of course, much more coal-fired electricity.
The important point is that the overall dose from either source is very small indeed compared with the dose to the population from natural background radiation.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is it not a significant coincidence that the best estimate for the amount of energy that could be saved by conservation is about 20 per cent. — the same as the amount of energy currently produced by nuclear power stations?

Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman produces a very interesting statistic.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public are at greater risk from radon gas and the common X-ray than from nuclear power stations? Does he also agree that if the Labour party proposals were implemented it would take nothing short of 20 years to phase out nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the dose to the population from the nuclear industry is very small indeed compared with that from naturally occurring sources. I am happy to say that I am not responsible for Labour party policy on nuclear power, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is preposterous.

Mr. Benn: Has the Minister consulted the American Government, who will explain to him very clearly the massive popular opposition in the United States to the pressurised water reactor, which explains why the Americans have not ordered one for 10 years? Is the Minister aware that, without ordering such a reactor for 10 years' the Americans, who have fewer other fuel resources than we have, have been able to manage perfectly well?

Mr. Goodlad: For reasons that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. I do not wish to comment on matters that were the subject of the Sizewell inquiry.

Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware of the complaints that hon. Members persistently receive from companies in their constituencies about the access to cheap energy enjoyed by their French competitors? Is it not a fact that even if we have relatively low economic growth in the future there will be a disproportionate increase in our demand for energy which can be met effectively and economically only by our relying to a considerable extent on nuclear generation?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is correct in what he says about the French. On the question of nuclear generation, I should prefer to rely on what I have already said.

Sizewell B

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning the implications for energy policy of the report of the Layfield committee into the proposed Sizewell B pressurised water reactor.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters about Sir Frank Layfield's report.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his staightforward answer. May I pursue a matter already touched on by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam)? Will it be possible to have the OPCS and medical review on the leukaemia link before our debate next Monday? The Minister knows that there is pressure for that, despite the answer about the precis given by the Secretary of State for Social Services. Would it be possible to obtain information about the post-Chernobyl review, about which I expect the Minister has received certain representations, before the debate next Monday? The House will want to be as fully informed as possible, and it would be helpful for hon. Members to have the full information before we debate Sizewell.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have briefly discussed the report this afternoon, but it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I note what the hon. Gentleman said on the other matter. I assure him that my right hon. Friend will consider these important issues before he comes to a decision.

Mr. Leigh: Further to the question by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), do not the residents of Aberdeen receive more radiation from the granite out of which their houses are made than the residents of Sizewell receive from the power station?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My constituency covers part of Aberdeen and a large area of the Cairngorms, where the predominant rock is granite. I have not, so far as I am aware, been badly affected yet.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that I have had plenty of representations about nuclear power in my constituency, bearing in mind that it is a mining constituency? The Minister stands there speaking with a forked tongue, because he says one thing at the Dispatch Box but other things when he is in the Department. Why does he not come clean and give the people, rather than the individual hon. Member, the opportunity to decide? His Government have a majority of over 100 and can totally ignore me.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would never dream of speaking to him with a forked tongue. I am sure that when we debate these matters the hon. Gentleman will be ready to make his own contribution.

Mr. Adley: Would it not be helpful if members of the Liberal party were a little more careful with their language? When the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) refers to the leukaemia link, he presumably means the alleged leukaemia link, which in my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) was clearly shown not to be a link at all in terms of harmful health problems. Will my right hon. Friend therefore encourage people to be aware that CND and others are constantly trying to denigrate the civil nuclear power industry through this alleged link between leukaemia and nuclear power stations, which is patent nonsense?

Mr. Buchannan-Smith: I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend has said and I could not agree more. It pays, when reports are complex and important, to read and analyse them properly and not to come to instant conclusions.

Mr. Orme: Has Sir Frank Layfield written to the Secretary of State to raise the matter of the Chernobyl disaster, which was not covered in the Layfield report, and will we have a statement before the debate next Monday?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be speaking in the debate next Monday, when the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to put his point.

Energy Efficiency

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further plans he has to improve energy efficiency in 1987.

Mr. David Hunt: We intend to build upon the success of Energy Efficiency Year by developing the 14-point programme of action that I outlined on 26 January 1986.

Mrs. Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although great progress has been made in alerting the nation to the benefits of energy efficiency — especially during a successful Energy Efficiency Year—there are still hundreds of millions of pounds to be saved by energy efficiency in the home and work place? Will he particularly encourage public bodies to look at the example set recently, by Surrey county council which signed an agreement to extend its contract energy management to several other sites in Surrey?

Mr. Hunt: I had the opportunity of congratulating Surrey county council personally at the national energy management conference. My hon. Friend is right to point to a number of initiatives that are under way among local authorities and to say that there is still considerable waste, which we estimate at £7 billion a year. Although some progress has been made, there is still much to do.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister recognise that, according to the latest figures that his Department has provided, 12·5 million homes in Britain are inadequately insulated against the cold? A large number of those homes are occupied by poorer people who cannot afford the cost


of insulation. Will he ensure that more funds are made available to expand the neighbourhood energy action initiatives? Will the Minister ensure that the keep warm project in my constituency receives adequate funding to enable it to carry out its much-needed work?

Mr. Hunt: When the Government came into office there were six neighbourhood energy action schemes. Currently there are 360, with a further 180 planned. The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the Government's efforts in that respect. I shall check the availability of finance for the hon. Gentleman's local project.

Mr. Rathbone: I applaud the Government's activity in this sector. However, will my hon. Friend have talks with my hon. Friend the Minister in the Northern Ireland Office responsible for energy conservation, to see whether some of the more extensive plans applied to Northern Ireland could be applied to the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, of course I will.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister confirm the following facts at the end of Energy Efficiency Year: only 37 per cent. of all households have loft insulation to current adequate standards, the budget for the programme has been cut from £24·5 million to £13 million and the Government propose to withdraw grants for millions of householders if the Secretary of State for the Environment has his way?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has a tremendous capacity for getting the facts wrong. He should be aware that 89 per cent. of lofts are insulated, and the Government have already put an extra—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would listen, he would hear the facts. The Government have already put an extra £1·5 million into the homes insulation scheme this winter, and under the new scheme, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will lay before Parliament in due course, the number of people who can benefit from 90 per cent. grants will increase by about 70 per cent.

Power Stations

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any applications from the Central Electricity Generating Board for a new power station other than that relating to Sizewell.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he proposes to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board in the month of February to discuss power station orders.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend meets the chairman regularly. The only application which he has for consent to construct a power station is that for Sizewell B.

Mr. Carlisle: Do not the suppliers of electricity generating plant urgently need new orders if they are to avoid redundancies and keep their skilled teams intact? Because of this, and in view of the possible shortage of electricity in 10 years' time, will my right hon. Friend take urgent steps to support a programme of ordering new power stations?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware that some manufacturers of power plant equipment and those who

work in the industry are concerned about this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has before him just the one application. However, as I said earlier, if he receives such applications he will endeavour to deal with them as quickly as he can.

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed what he said earlier, that if applications were made for two new coal-fired power stations he would not discourage them. Is he aware that if consideration was being given to strengthening the south-east electricity grid link, Scotland could import two power stations because of the surplus capacity, and we would not need Sizewell?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall have an opportunity to debate this matter next week and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider all the evidence presented to him. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is right that my right hon. Friend should await the results of the debate before he comes to a decision. The debate will give an opportunity for these issues to be raised.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that there is great suspicion in the engineering industry that the CEGB is holding back on placing orders for coal-fired stations until the Government decide about Sizewell? While this is going on the engineering industry is in a desperate state as it waits for orders, and month after month hundreds of workers are losing their jobs. In the end, we may no longer have the engineering capacity to manufacture the turbines and other equipment needed to carry out the orders.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, particularly from the exchanges this afternoon, my right hon. Friend has an application before him for a power station. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind what he said about that.

Alternative Energy Sources

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Commission about alternative sources of energy.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: At the Council of Energy Ministers, which is planned for 31 March. I am pleased that during the British presidency it was agreed that more Community collaboration should be organised in this sphere.

Mr. Knox: Is the balance between United Kingdom national research and Community research into alternative sources of energy about right? Has the meeting cif Community scientists about alternative sources of energy, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 November last year, taken place, and if so, what was the outcome?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I believe that there is a place both for Community-sponsored research and for research sponsored by national Governments, as the needs of national Governments are quite often different. Many projects have been supported by Community funds and I hope that that will continue. On my hon. Friend's second question, the chief scientists have still to meet, but I understand that that meeting will take place shortly.

Conservation

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what lessons his Department has drawn from the recent cold spell about energy conservation.

Mr. David Hunt: The recent cold weather confirms the importance of my right hon. Friend's campaign for energy efficiency in every sector, particularly with regard to roof and wall insulation.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him on the success of the Government's community insulation projects. However, does he agree that we still have centrally heated gardens and warm streets resulting from heat emanating from homes, in which that heat should remain?
In my hon. Friend's discussions with the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment, will he consider some means whereby rebates on rates or the community charge may be made available to individuals and local authorities to ensure that housing insulation satisfies certain requirements, something with which other countries cope far better than us?

Mr. Hunt: We shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's points. It is right to pay particular tribute to neighbourhood energy action for its tremendous achievement in organising so many people to help those who could not afford insulation. By the end of this year the Government's insulation projects will have helped 450,000 homes. My hon. Friend is right to point out that many people who could take action do not do so.

Mr. Rowlands: Can the Minister confirm that only 37 per cent. of households have adequate loft insulation in line with Government standards?

Mr. Hunt: I have tried to point out to the hon. Gentleman that currently almost 90 per cent. of lofts have insulation, although most of that is inadequate. Surely it is right to focus the greatest help on those less able to help themselves. That is why, in 1980, the Government introduced a 90 per cent. grant under the home insulation scheme. So far that has helped about 500,000 elderly and disabled householders on low incomes to insulate their lofts. We are determined that there should be more progress under this important scheme.

British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the activities of British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

Mr. David Hunt: I am pleased to report that British Coal Enterprise has just approved its 1,000th project. At the end of January the company had committed £22·1 million and had helped to create nearly 14,000 new job opportunities.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his answer. When I first entered the House 30 years ago it was the aim of most people to get as many underground workers as possible out of the mines because it was such a rough, dirty and nasty job. It is rather nice to know that British Coal Enterprise is proving that it can provide alternative jobs. Will my hon. Friend keep up the good work?

Mr. Hunt: I shall certainly pass my hon. Friend's generous comments to the management of British Coal Enterprise. I stress once again that the Government are committed to the success of that company.

British Coal (Capital Investment)

Mr. Gerald Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the value of capital investment made by British Coal in 1986; and how much of that was devoted to the western area.

Mr. David Hunt: The western area of British Coal received £69 million of the £660 million invested in the industry during 1985–86.

Mr. Howarth: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the efforts made by British Coal to invest in the western area? That is excellent news for the coal miners in my constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that for three weeks running the miners at Littleton and Lea Hall collieries have produced record outputs per man shift? Littleton colliery is producing 30,000 tons weekly, which is a record.

Mr. Hunt: British Coal is currently investing almost £2 million a day in the coal industry. So far, the Government have invested £5 billion in the coal industry since they came to power in 1979 — far more than the Labour Government. I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on the response that we have received from the men and management of the industry. Those record productivity figures offer the best news to the industry that it could ever have.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate of the number of people employed directly and indirectly in the development of North sea oil and gas.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Department of Employment estimates that 26,400 persons were employed in the oil and gas extraction industry as at September 1986. Figures for employment in the supply industry in the United Kingdom as a whole are not available.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Development Agency and other agencies forecast losses of up to 30,000 jobs in the industry in the next two years unless there is an increase in activity? Has the Minister any proposals to put to the House for the development of the 90 discoveries within 20 miles of existing installations to encourage activity and to save us from a rapid decline in self-sufficiency?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is concern about jobs, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is encouraged by the fact that last year we approved new developments worth over £2 billion, which will generate work. As recently as a couple of weeks ago I approved the Audrey gas development, worth over £80 million. Work is continuing. In addition, the early repayment of petroleum revenue tax has improved the industry's cash flow by £300 million. I understand the problems. We are watching what is happening in the offshore industry closely because it is important to our economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Employment

Mr. Caborn: asked the Minister for the Arts whether he will undertake a study of the impact of the arts on employment.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): Two studies are currently under way. I am participating in the funding of one of them, and I await the results with interest.

Mr. Caborn: I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that the criteria adopted for the study will not mean robbing Peter to pay Paul. Will the Minister consider developments in Sheffield which have created employment, particularly at the Leadmill centre, with its new recording studio? The constraints on that project are now only financial. Will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment and ask him to stop running round the country like a philistine taking a crack at every local authority, especially in Sheffield, where he condemned the new recording studio which has given new vision to many young people in Sheffield?

Mr. Luce: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has tabled his first question to me on the arts, and that at least 47 other questions have been tabled by Opposition Members. I welcome the Opposition's new-found interest in the arts. More questions have been tabled today than at any other time since I have been responsible for the arts. I welcome that warmly.
The two studies are important because they will give us information about the impact of the arts on the economy. That information will be helpful to us in assessing the value of the arts in both the public and private sectors.
I look forward to my visit to Sheffield next week. I have great admiration for the work at the Crucible theatre and for other arts activities in that area.

Mr. Jesse!: As Britain is flourishing as one of the arts capitals of the world, and as our theatres, concerts, operas, ballet, art galleries and museums — our heritage generally, not excluding military bands — attract foreigners whose spending generates employment and income, will the Government continue to build on that strength?

Mr. Luce: I agree that we have a remarkable record, which is illustrated by the large numbers of overseas tourists who enjoy our arts activities. If every hon. Member in the House supported our overall encouragement for increased resources for the arts, including those from the private sector, the arts would have even better prospects.

Sherman Theatre, Cardiff

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the future of the Sherman theatre, Cardiff.

Mr. Luce: I have received three representations. The university college, Cardiff is in touch with the Welsh Arts Council and the local authorities concerned about the future of the theatre.

Mr. Wardell: Will the Minister make urgent representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State for Wales about the desperate plight of this theatre? It is an important theatre, especially in terms of Welsh language productions. There have been precedents whereby the Welsh Office has given one-off payments, such as in May 1979, when a £750,000 trust was set up. The income from that led to the installation of a professor of geriatric medicine in the National School of Medicine in Cardiff. I shall be grateful to the Minister if he will make such representations.

Mr. Luce: Both my right hon. Friend and I know the importance of the Sherman theatre to Cardiff and, indeed, to Wales. I observe that the University college has decided to give a tiding-over sum running into early 1988. This will give time for the theatre to look for other sources of funds. The Welsh Arts Council already gives considerable sums and it is reasonable to look to local authorities to play their part too. The South Glamorgan county council plays its part, and other local authorities should look upon the Sherman theatre as a good investment for their areas.

Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Cardiff city council already gives generously to one theatre in Cardiff and to the finest concert hall in Britain? The county council should certainly give more support, but there is room for central Government short-term financing which will, unfortunately, be necessary over and above anything that the university will give. The university funding is ceasing at short notice.

Mr. Luce: I know the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to this theatre. The Welsh Arts Council receives money direct from the Arts Council of Great Britain—taxpayers' money. It gives a sizeable sum and is taking a keen interest in the whole question of the future financing of this theatre.

Mr. Freud: Does the Minister not feel that the Government have some responsibility for the continued existence and wellbeing of university theatres in general? When UGC funding dries up, is it not important for the Government to provide interim finance so that the wellbeing not only of the theatre in Wales but of those in Exeter and Oxford can be preserved?

Mr. Luce: I must reiterate the point that I have already made, that the Government through the Welsh Arts Council, are already giving considerable support. For this financial year the Welsh Arts Council is giving £250,000 to the theatre. This shows the importance that it attaches to it. With all these theatres, it is partnership and the variety of sources of finance that are important. That is why it is right to look to local authorities to play their part.

Royal Opera House

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the development and extension of the Royal Opera House.

Mr. Luce: I have discussed the development plans with the Royal Opera House and have met representatives of the Covent Garden Community Association.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister practise a little open government here and allow the public to know what is going on in this matter, which is of some significance to the arts and to public expenditure? Will he do two things? First, will he publish the 1975 trust deed so that the public can see the terms and conditions on which the land for the


development of the opera house was granted? Secondly, could he explain what is the interest, if any, of the Royal Opera House in the Lyceum and how the financial involvement of the London Residuary Body might be concerned in this project? Unless he gives some more information to the public on these important matters, people will feel that public expenditure and the future of the Royal Opera House are not in safe hands.

Mr. Luce: I am quite happy to give as much information on this as I can. The Royal Opera House came forward with an imaginative plan for its long-term development. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the plan involves raising about £55 million, and the opera house proposes that at least a substantial proportion of that, about £30 million, should come from commercial development. It is important that the opera house should be able to prove that it can raise this money from the private sector. That is its objective. I shall look at the question of the publication of the deeds and whether that is possible. In the meantime, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the long-term proposals, which are subject to planning approval and to approval by me, are imaginative and should be carefully considered.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that just before Christmas the all-party arts and heritage group examined the plans and proposals and found them exciting, imaginative and entirely realistic? Like me, does my right hon. Friend wish the Royal Opera House every success?

Mr. Luce: I am pleased that the Royal Opera House has put forward imaginative plans. Clearly, it is important to realise that they have to go through certain stages, which includes planning approval from Westminster city council. After that I shall have to consider, as the trustee under the deed of covenant, whether I can allow this to go through. Like my hon. Friend, I broadly praise the long-term objectives.

Public Library Service

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met with the Association of County Councils to discuss the future of the Public Library Service.

Mr. Luce: The Association of County Councils has not sought a meeting to discuss this matter with me, but I shall be happy to see the association if it does.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that there have been 200 library closures since 1979, a 34 per cent. cut in book funding per head of population since 1979 and a 20 per cent. cut in the same figure for the county of Cumbria? Are the Government simply anti-culture?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this is the first time that he has put an oral question to me—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. Withdraw.

Mr. Luce: If that is not true, I am happy to withdraw it. I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject of arts and libraries. I hope, therefore, that he will welcome the fact that the amount of money allocated to local authority libraries and museums will increase in the coming financial year by 15 per cent. I hope he will also

welcome the fact that, compared with a decade ago, when the Socialists were last in power, there are more books in libraries.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Staff Reporting and Appraisal

Mr. Greenway: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what action he is taking to improve staff reporting and appraisal throughout the Civil Service.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): All Departments are introducing new appraisal systems to cover staff in non-industrial grades. The new systems must focus on results achieved in relation to planned objectives. Early evidence shows they are being well received.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome the openness of the system that my right hon. Friend has just described. It compares well with the snoops being appointed by many Labour local authorities to push people in local authority employment in places such as Ealing and Brent.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I am grateful also for the increasing openness in the Civil Service, especially on appraisals. There is an increasing move in the Civil Service to relate pay to performance, which is also resulting in higher productivity.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Minister accept the gratitude of the House for any part that he played in getting the Prime Minister to accept the loyalty and dedication of the Civil Service and to show her admiration for it — elements that were lacking over the previous seven years? Will the right hon. Gentleman now go on to ensure that many of those civil servants who are leaving the Civil Service are encouraged to remain in it?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to take advantage of his question to say that recently the Management and Personnel Office tabled an annual report for the first time, copies of which are in the Library. This gives a clear message from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the importance of the Civil Service and its dedication and loyalty. That is true of the vast bulk of the Civil Service.

Mr. Stokes: Returning to the subject of staff appraisal, is my right hon. Friend aware that in my experience, which goes back a long time, the Civil Service and the armed forces are very much better at staff appraisal than are a great deal of industry and commerce, which is a shame for industry and commerce?

Mr. Luce: There may be a considerable amount of truth in that. The modern methods used by today's Civil Service are as good as anything in the private sector.

Dr. McDonald: Is the Minister aware that the research commissioned by the MPO shows that women are consistently marked down in terms of promotability? What steps will he take to reverse that trend?

Mr. Luce: There is an Equal Opportunities Office and, as employers, we are totally pledged to equal opportunities within the Civil Service. In the service as a whole at least half of the Civil Service comprises women, but they are employed principally in junior positions. Obviously, our


interest is to persuade more women to serve in senior positions, in long-term careers, and to do our best in that direction.

Productivity

Mr. Gerald Bowden: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is his estimate of improvements in productivity in the Civil Service as a result of management reform and other changes since 1979.

Mr. Luce: About 90,000 Civil Service posts were saved between April 1979 and April 1986 by general streamlining and greater efficiency. That is an improvement of well over 10 per cent. of the size of the Civil Service in 1979 and a major contribution to the overall reduction of 19 per cent.

Mr. Bowden: I am encouraged by my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that one of the management objectives of any enterprise must be value for money? Does he consider that cost efficiency might be achieved by contracting out some of the ancillary services within the Civil Service, such as catering?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Clearly, the objective of the Civil Service is to get the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. The evidence of the past few years shows that our achievement is solid. We have saved just under £1 billion of taxpayers money by improvements in productivity as a whole and reductions in the size of the Civil Service, and we have been able to improve services as well. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's points.

Mr. Heifer: While the Minister is considering improvements in productivity, surely he will not accept the nonsense that we saw in the press over the weekend about members of the Civil Service who are supporters of the Militant Tendency. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall not follow the ideas of McCarthy in the United States of America and extend the concept so that people must take a loyalty test before they can be members of the Civil Service?

Mr. Luce: I have not, as yet, had any evidence of that drawn to my attention. However, a question on that subject has been tabled for me for tomorrow. As the hon. Gentleman may know, long-standing arrangements have been designed to prevent extremists gaining access to highly classified Government information. Political affiliation is not a factor in recruitment to the public service. The Civil Service has a long tradition of political impartiality. The only requirement is that civil servants should serve the democratically elected Government of the day with loyalty and integrity. The vast majority of the Civil Service do so.

Secondments

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what recent initiatives he has taken to encourage exchanges between civil servants and industrialists, other than full-time secondments.

Mr. Luce: We have introduced the Whitehall and industry scheme, under which young civil servants can spend short periods on attachment to business organisations. Under another scheme, civil servants can he attached, on an unpaid basis, to the boards of private sector companies.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that there are practical difficulties in encouraging full-time secondments'? However, I welcome the increase in them in recent years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many more initiatives could be taken to encourage part-time secondments between industry and the Civil Service, and vice versa, which would be beneficial to both sides? Will he consider ways in which more civil servants could be appointed to non-executive, albeit unpaid, posts on public and private industry boards?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continuing interest in the problem. It is singularly important that there should be the greatest degree of interchange between the Civil Service, other parts of the public sector, and, principally, the private sector. As he knows, I am trying to persuade other Departments to increase the number of secondments from the private sector and the number of inward secondments from the private sector to the Civil Service. I am looking at ways of doing that, including non-executive and unpaid directors, short courses with businesses and our training courses, to seek a greater interchange between the two.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Minister agree that the numbers involved are still pitifully small and that his remarks are, therefore, very welcome. I, too, acknowledge that there is a great deal for people from the private sector to learn by working in the public sector, in which the constraints and the whole way of life is entirely different from that in the private sector.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is right and I am certainly doing my best to encourage that. It is not, as was said earlier, an easy process to arrange, but, as the hon. Gentleman may know, several important posts in the Civil Service are being filled by outside people for short periods.

Management and Personnel Office

Mr. Rowe: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will provide more information on the work and achievements of the Management and Personnel Office.

Mr. Luce: Information on aspects of the work of the Management and Personnel Office is published frequently. On 28 January, for the first time, a report on the work of the MPO as a whole was published. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. I shall consider producing a similar publication in future years.

Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who have had the opportunity to meet members of that Office are grateful for the chance to learn more about its work? Does he also accept that progress towards eliminating discrimination against people with non-white skins is moving much more slowly than some of us would like? Can he assure us that that will be a priority within that Office?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in this subject, and I am certainly anxious for hon. Members on both sides of the House to have a chance to learn more about the workings of the Civil Service. On his last point, it is very much our policy as employers to pursue the principle of equal opportunities for all. My hon. Friend may know that several studies are taking place about the ethnic origins of people recruited


to the service. I hope that this will help us in our overall campaign to encourage the maximum number of ethnic minorities to join.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that many of us will not be happy with the inadequate reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)? Whatever answer he may give tomorrow—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing question 88.

Mr. Winnick: I am dealing with the management of personnel in the Civil Service, Mr. Speaker. Many of us believe that there must be the widest possible opposition to any sort of McCarthyism. If the Minister is worried about extremists, he should be worrying about the Cabinet.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. No one has ever suggested that there is any sort of McCarthyism. We have well laid-down procedures for dealing with any problems in the Civil Service, and the vast bulk of civil servants are loyal and impartial and do their job properly.
Later——

Mr. Fisher: On a point of order arising from Question Time, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed the enthusiasm of the Minister for the Arts for the number of questions tabled by my hon. Friends in an attempt to scrutinise the Government's appalling record on the arts. At an appropriate moment in the parliamentary year will you consider granting more time to this matter so that my hon. Friends can explore fully the Government's bad record?

Mr. Jessel: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it on the same matter?

Mr. Jessel: It is related, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with one matter at a time. First, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) knows that it is not for me to decide which questions to take on which day. That is for the usual channels. Nevertheless, I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, because I wish to see the Chamber as full as possible all the time. Forty-seven questions to the Minister for the Arts is extremely good.

Mr. Jessel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Arts Question Time for 10 minutes every three weeks is greatly valued by hon. Members who care about the arts, is it not an abuse for Opposition Members, who, by and large, are not philistines, suddenly to table 47 questions in one day so as to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is certainly not an abuse. It is good news that there is such a great interest in the arts.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be seeking to raise a matter on which I can rule. I shall take points of order now because, as I said on Thursday, there is no statement today.

Mr. Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not expected that, if hon. Members table questions, they should turn up to ask them? That has not happened today in the case of many of the 47 Opposition Members who tabled questions to the Minister for the Arts. That is a gross discourtesy to him and the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) was not present for Arts Questions today.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) exited stage left in high dudgeon because he was unable to get in at Arts Question Time? If we were given more time, perhaps he would not have to leave so abruptly.

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea why the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) left the Chamber.

Mr. Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It must be admitted that 10 of the 47 questions were not tabled by the Labour party. May I suggest that the chances of hijacking an Arts Question Time by tabling so many questions make it extraordinarily difficult to question the Minister in respect of his prime responsibility to the arts. Would it not be possible to have one open question per session?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This process only delays us. I am sure that the whole House wants to see Question Time taken seriously. From the Chair, I welcome the fact that hon. Members take such an interest in Question Time. I would like to see the Chamber full all the time.

Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that the fact that the Liberal Members were not able to ask the questions that they felt they wanted to ask is nothing to do with your control of the Chamber, but with their dilatoriness in tabling questions?

Mr. Alan Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you consider the request put to you by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that Arts Question Time might be extended, will you bear in mind that it is estimated that it costs an average of £70 to answer a parliamentary question? There is a view that the £2,520 of public money that it will have cost to answer the 36 questions tabled so energetically by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central would perhaps have been better used towards action on the arts.

Mr. Winnick: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with one thing at a time. I should say to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) that the timing of questions is not a matter for me. I have already said that.

Mr. Winnick: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could consideration be given to looking at our procedures enabling us to raise matters of great importance? As I understand it, you are not in favour of the abuse of Standing Order No. 20. You may know that on Thursday, during business questions, I raised the acute plight of the Palestinians who are facing starvation in the Lebanon. The situation has hardly changed. It may be argued that we have an opportunity of asking the Foreign Secretary oral questions every five or six weeks. I took the opportunity today to look at the questions that are on the agenda for Wednesday. I found that there is one question, No. 12, which may be reached and which you may allow to be extended to include the topic I have chosen. The other question is No. 22, which it is likely will not be reached.
I ask you to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that in the country at large—however important arts questions and the rest of today's business is—there is acute anxiety as to whether Britain, through the international agencies, could play some part in trying to bring relief to people facing starvation. Is there no way, on a day such as this when there is not too much business, for such matters to be raised?

Mr. Speaker: If by chance today's business were to conclude earlier than anticipated, there may be other opportunities.

Mr. Boyes: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed that I rose in my place briefly but was not called and did not exit left in a hurry. However, you give preference to people wanting to make maiden speeches. You may not have been aware that I was trying to ask my maiden question to the Minister for the Arts. I hope that you will take that into consideration next time.

Nuclear Waste (Debate)

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. Waldegrave): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a debate on nuclear waste disposal last Monday I paid tribute to what I believed to be the courage of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for saying that, if the geology and other conditions were right, he would not necessarily object to the disposal of nuclear waste in his constituency. By a slip of the tongue I referred to him as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and this was recorded in Hansard. This has understandably embarrassed the hon. Member for Midlothian. I should like both to put the record straight and to apologise to him.

Orders of the Day — Broadcasting Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill he now read a Second time.
This is not a massive Bill and may not, at first blush, seem an exciting Bill. However, it is an essential part of the change coming over British broadcasting which is both massive and exciting. Professor Peacock did not, contrary to some reports, invent the idea of change; change will come about because of the way in which technology will increase choice. However, he and his colleagues did set the agenda for change, as the House recognised when it debated his report before Christmas.
It is noticeable that the days have gone when those who supposed themselves to be in the know in these matters sniggered and sneered at the Peacock report. There is no doubt that it will have a striking influence on the way in which we move from a highly regulated duopoly towards a more open broadcasting system that is founded on the choice of the viewer and the listener. I do not contend that the Peacock committee produced all the right answers, but it set the agenda. We in government are going steadily through the items on the agenda and announcing decisions as they are necessary. A recent example is the indexation of the BBC licence fee. We shall he listening to views—r example, on radio—after we publish our Green Paper later this month.
The Bill deals with the ITV part of broadcasting. Its main provision is designed to give the Government enough time to consider whether there should be changes in the way in which ITV terrestrial contracts are let. The ITV system has many achievements to its credit since it came into being and both the companies and the IBA deserve credit for them. It is my experience that most minds within the ITV system are lively ones that accept the need for further change. After all, some of them began as radicals thrusting forward to find their place in the sun when the BBC had the monopoly. I do not believe that they or their successors want to end up as slightly overweight giants trying to keep newcomers out of the kingdom in which they themselves were newcomers not long ago.
I think that it is accepted by everyone that there must be further change. I believe that the arrival of British direct broadcasting by satellite will in itself be a powerful agent of change.
The first proposal in the Bill is to ensure that the new DBS—direct broadcasting by satellite—services have a chance to prove themselves. Provision for DBS was made in the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. I do not need to go through the slightly painful history of the project, but in 1985 we invited the IBA to assess the prospects of a British DBS service to be provided by independent commercial interests. The IBA told us after it had made its assessment that interest in the venture was such that the relevant provisions of the 1984 Act should be brought into operation.
The IBA went on to advertise a contract fora DBS service and announced in December 1986 that it had


decided to give a contract to British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd. There is now the prospect of the British DBS service providing three national television channels and becoming available by the end of the decade. This will be a great step towards broadening consumer choice in a way that Professor Peacock anticipated and as we would like to see.
The financial investment that is required to establish a DBS runs to hundreds of millions of pounds. A highly specialised sort of satellite has to be built to carry the high-powered transmitters that are needed for DBS. Programmes have to be bought and schedules devised, and all of this must be done before the service begins. Finally, the satellite has to be launched. There cannot be certainty of success. There is no doubt that it is an expensive and risky business. Responsibility for making all the financial arrangements rests entirely with the contractor.
Even if preparations go reasonably well and the service is launched, it will he some time before the contractor begins to see a return on his investment. The number of households able to receive the service will build up fairly slowly, and in the early years it will not be large enough to cover his costs. To provide a reasonable balance between the risks and the likely return, we believe that a longer contract period is needed than is necessary normally for a terrestrial television contract.
In the 1984 Act, some allowance was made by providing for DBS contracts to last for a maximum of 12 years compared with eight years for the terrestrial ITV contracts. It became clear after that, in discussions with the IBA, that 12 years would still not be enough to provide would-be investors with a reasonable expectation of return. I therefore announced last year, before the DBS contract was advertised, that the Government would see an opportunity to change the law to extend the contract period from 12 years to 15 years. There is nothing magical in the period of 15 years, hut, having looked carefully at the business projections, we believe that it provides a fairer balance between risks and returns. Hence, clause 1(2) gives effect to the undertaking that I have given.
As the lifetime of the IBA expires on 31 December 1996—some years before the expiry of the 15-year period that I am talking about—we also intend in the near future to bring into force section 45 of the 1984 Act. This provides for the extension of the lifetime of the authority and will pave the way for the authority to award a DBS contract for the full 15-year period.
The second purpose of the Bill is to keep open the options for change in the terrestrial independent television system. The Peacock committee made a number of specific proposals in this regard. The majority recommended that ITV contracts should be put out to competitive tender. There is also a proposal in the report that Channel 4 should be, not compelled, but given the option of selling its own advertising time rather than being financed by subscription from the ITV companies. The committee also reflected on the possibility that some or all IBA services might be encoded alongside BBC services if subscription were introduced in place of the television licence fee. From what I said in the general debate, the House will know that the Government have commissioned consultants to carry out a study of the technical and economic aspects of subscription, and we expect that report before too long.
The Peacock committee is not the only body that has made proposals for changing the system under which ITV contracts are let.. I find that, even among the beneficiaries of the existing system, for several years there has been a

certain restlessness about the way in which the matter is managed, and the IBA has put forward proposals, in what it describes as "A Better Way", for awarding ITV contracts. The IBA has proposed new arrangements which include the possibility of a longer contract period and provision for a formal review of a company's performance at specified intervals.
We are considering different ideas from different stables for change in the way in which ITV contracts are awarded. Obviously, they are important decisions, and we have not yet come to firm conclusions on them. We want to listen to and take proper account of the views not only of interested parties but of the public as a whole. Therefore, we believe that a period is needed in which we can assess the changes in the system, which will he sensible against the background of developments scanned by the Peacock committee.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: The point that my right hon. Friend made is absolutely crucial to the assessment of the present performance of ITV contractors. Will he assure the House that we shall have a chance to debate any proposed new system before it is introduced?

Mr. Hurd: That is inevitable. Any change of any substance would need legislation. Therefore, I do not think that it can be much of a secret that we would intend to produce early in the next Parliament a substantial broadcasting Bill covering this and, no doubt. other matters. We have not taken decisions of policy. There should be time for hon. Members and interested parties to express their views not only on the Peacock proposals—that is, those of the majority and of the minority—but on the IBA proposals and on what the ITV companies may think. Under the present system and timings, there is not the necessary room for manoeuvre—the necessary time for the kind of process that my hon. Friend wishes to see.
The ITV contracts now in force expire on 31 December 1989. Unless some action is taken, the IBA will advertise during the course of this year new contracts for a maximum of eight years, to run from the beginning of 1990 until the end of 1997. This would mean that there would be no opportunity for changes to the contracts system itself, or for other changes that might closely affect new contracts, before 1998.
We have discussed this problem with the IBA and as a result have come to the conclusion that the best course would be to provide in the Bill for a three-year extension of the existing contracts. I say "in the Bill." I mean, in effect, because anybody who has studied the Bill w ill see that, on the face of it, it is a more complicated procedure. However, the effect is to provide for a three-year extension of existing contracts.
That is achieved in two ways. First, provision is made in the Bill for the next round of ITV contracts. They will run from 1 January 1990 and will last for only three years. Clause 1(3) therefore amends the relevant provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981 to provide that the contracts that commence on 1 January 1990 should expire no later than 31 December 1992. That would include the next breakfast. television contract, which is due to begin on 1 February 1991. If, therefore, the Government come to the conclusion, after reflection and after having listened to views, that changes in the contract system are necessary, they can be introduced in time for the contracts running from 1 January 1993.
On the other hand, if the Government decide to make no substantive changes, the Bill also provides for the IBA to award contracts under the existing system from 1993 onwards.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Suggestions have been made, which are causing concern in the county of Cumbria, that a decision is likely to be made in favour of a reduction in the number of contractors to 10. Effectively that would wipe out a number of smaller, regional television stations. Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that that does not happen and that it is ruled off the agenda? Some parts of the country, such as mine, which enjoys Border Television, would be very angry if once again a decision of this nature were to be taken, as was taken by the BBC, against the interests of the county as a whole.

Mr. Hurd: I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the BBC, because I think he wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about it. I have no power, nor does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—nor would the House wish us to have the power—to intervene in the way in which the BBC organises these matters. Any change of that kind would not flow from the Bill, and I know of no such change in prospect. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it would be a very serious matter, and I have no news that that is in prospect or under consideration.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister especially had no interest or concern and would not involve herself in this matter. Will he assure us that when it comes to the appointment of the new director-general of the BBC she will not again use those words, "Is he one of us?"

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Hurd: Far from the terms of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and far from the terms of reality. The Prime Minister entered the discussion simply because the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) sought to invoke her, rather exaggerating the powers that she has over the regulation of the BBC.
The second step that the Government propose to take, if Parliament agrees to the Bill, is to bring into force section 46 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. The effect would be to relieve the IBA of the obligation to advertise the shortened round of contracts. Section 46 was originally drawn up to encourage ITV companies to join in the so-called "joint venture" DBS project. That venture did not proceed, as the House knows. Therefore, section 46 was not implemented. However, a similar provision is needed now to extend existing terrestrial contracts. This Bill provides the opportunity for Parliament to consider the provision in the 1984 Act in its new context.
The provisions of section 46 will have effect for one contract round only. In other words, after the shortened round of contracts to run from 1 January 1990, the IBA will, unless there is fresh legislative provision, be required to advertise succeeding contracts in the normal way.
To sum up, this part of the Bill keeps open the options for change. It does not propose substantive changes to our

broadcasting system, or commit the House to such changes. As I have already said, any such changes would require further changes in the law in due course.
It is no secret that, day by day. we edge nearer to the date of a general election. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) thinks that the Labour party will win and I think that the Conservative party will win. I do not know what obscure ambitions may be swirling about in the mind of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), but, whoever is right in those assumptions, no one would wish to have a position in which, although everyone has been discussing change in this area for a long time, change would not be possible because of action which the IBA had already set in hand, under the existing procedures, to advertise new contracts.
Broadcasting, especially at this time, should not be the prisoner of its own procedures. If we are to make intelligent use of the opportunities now opening up, we need legislative room for manoeuvre.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I can open on a note of profound consensus. All of us on both sides of the House will agree that, day by day, we are getting nearer to the future. The Home Secretary was accurate on that matter.
I start by making an apology to the House. A commitment relating to tomorrow's Committee sittings of the Criminal Justice Bill will take me out of the Chamber just before 6 o'clock. I hope that that will not prevent me from returning to hear the winding-up speeches.
Although this is a small Bill, with limited objectives, its implications are important and could be disturbing. One disturbing aspect is the piecemeal way in which the Government enunciate their policy on broadcasting. The Bill deals with the Government's policy and the Home Secretary says that the Government are going through the Peacock recommendations one by one. At the same time he promises us that, within the next couple of weeks, the long-awaited Green Paper on radio broadcasting policy will be published. It is unsatisfactory to be given pieces of a jigsaw which we then have to try to fit together without seeing the whole picture.
The extension of franchise periods for DBS stems from the knowledge—about which the Home Secretary has been frank this afternoon—that DBS, far from being an instant gold mine for investors, requires a huge and hazardous investment that cannot rely on an early return.
Already the original timetable for DBS has slipped by a couple of years and Ministers have been careful not to promise that a 1990 start is assured. Already we are catering for franchises that will stretch into the 21st century. Those delays follow an uncertain start. I remember taking part in the Second Reading debate on the Cable and Broadcasting Bill with the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). I remember those heady days of certainty, symbolised by the brave prophecy of the Home Secretary's predecessor. That is nearly three years ago. I remember listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying:
I believe that the consortium approach offers the most realistic chance of getting the British DBS service into action within the next three or four years."—[Official Report, 8 May 1984; Vol. 59, c. 757.]
That prophecy, like many others in broadcasting policy, has fallen by the wayside. Those disappointments have led


the Government, regrettably in our view, to take the completely commercial route with such brave participants as Granada, Anglia and, among others, Mr. Richard Branson. By the way, whatever happened to his Litter Clean Up campaign? I hope that his participation in satellite broadcasting will he a little more clear cut and reliable than that.
It is impossible to calculate the likely effect of successful DBS on television programming. Increased choice for the viewer is greatly to be welcomed and is inevitable. There will be much more of it as time goes by, but no one knows to what extent the viewer will take advantage of even the limited extra choice that will come when DBS arrives. We must bear in mind the extra and, at first, quite substantial costs of adapting sets and obtaining other equipment and the need, which has so far scuppered cable, to pay subscriptions to receive some of the new DBS channels.
Current ITV franchise holders will be watching the extent to which they may need to go down market to compete for revenue and the possible effect on their finances if DBS grabs a sizeable part of advertising revenue. Independent local radio will also be watching fearfully, bearing in mind the precarious finances of a number of stations. It will be interesting to see next week or the week after how the Government intend to assist the prospects of such local radio stations if, as we hope, community radio is at long last to be brought into being.
Of course, the real impact on ITV will come from any decision to adopt the Peacock recommendation of auctioning off the ITV franchises. That is the real reason for the extension in the Bill of the existing franchises. The Home Secretary was at his blandest when he said during our debate on the Peacock report:
One of the most significant recommendations was the proposal that in future ITV contracts should he put out to competitive tender. On 3 July I made it clear in my statement that the option for carrying out this recommendation, or indeed any changes in the system, including changes which the IBA has suggested, would he closed off for the next 10 years if the IBA were to proceed under the timetable in the present legislation to award the next round of ITV contracts to take effect from the beginning of 1990.
The Home Secretary, referring to this Bill, said:
That Bill has not been brought forward because we have already decided on the changes that should be made. We simply do not want to foreclose the options."—[Official Report, 20 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 717–8.]
The right hon. Gentleman repeated that sentiment today when he said that he wanted to keep open the options for change. That means that if the Government were returned to office at the forthcoming general election there would be a danger that the foolish and damaging Peacock recommendation that ITV franchises should be auctioned off would be implemented.
Selling television channels to the highest bidder would mean an inevitable degradation of the standards of programme content. Peacock makes it clear that the highest bidders would be expected to win and that explanations would be required if they did not; Peacock had in mind the crudest kind of commercial tendering. That would mean that money, not standards, would be the deciding factor in who runs ITV in the next decade and would set the pattern for the round of franchises after that. That would leave the field clear for the wealthiest multinationals, with the crassest standards.
The misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about the future of such estimable small companies as Border Television

would be more than justified. Anybody who has seen that company in operation knows that it is an admirable example of how a small, local television station can cater to a small area with a recognisable identity. The idea that a company such as Border could be bought out by a multinational bidder or even a bidder within this country is unacceptable.
Let us be clear that any company that paid huge sums for a franchise—or sums that were huge in proportion to the area and population covered by the franchise—would be looking to get back its outlay as quickly as possible, which would mean maximising revenue through maximising audiences. The generally high standards of ITV would go. Any chance of increased access to independents—which, incidentally, was another Peacock recommendation—would also go. Visual musak and worse would be the order of the day.
The Opposition believe that there is much to be said for examining the possibility of increasing access to independents, but that must not be made an excuse for casualising employment in ITV and the BBC, with the inevitable harmful effects on pay, conditions and employment prospects for those working in the industry.
The Home Secretary spoke in November about the Bill facilitating "any changes" to the system, and any changes could mean the adoption of the Peacock recommendation to enable a change in the present system of supporting Channel 4. Such a change, leaving Channel 4 to cast around for its own advertising revenue, would not only lead to higher costs for Channel 4 in setting up machinery for obtaining such revenue, but would mean that Channel 4 would not have a guaranteed income, with all the uncertainties that that would produce. Channel 4 would be thrown directly into the market place and such a change would risk throwing away the reputation that Channel 4 has achieved as perhaps the most brilliantly successful television channel in the world.
Such changes in ITV would inevitably have a harmful effect on BBC1 and BBC2. A national ITV network sold off to the highest bidders would force the BBC down market to compete, and a commercially avaricious Channel 4 would have an equally inevitable effect on its public sector counterpart, BBC2.
In such an environment the position of the director-general of the BBC would become impossible. Already, following the deplorable Government and Tory party pressures on the BBC, the calibre of the new director-general will be of paramount importance in defending and enhancing the independence and standards of both BBC television and radio. The choice of director-general, which is to be made by the BBC board of governors during the next few days, will be a crucial test of the courage and integrity of that body. Its members will be failing in their duty if they simply go for a safe man or woman whose appointment will pacify the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
The new director-general——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill is in no way related to BBC matters.

Mr. Kaufman: As I have sought to explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Bill is related to the BBC, because if the ITV franchises are auctioned off that will degrade the standards of ITV and the competition in the market place


will inevitably drag down the standards of the BBC. In that context the ability, integrity and calibre of the director-general of the BBC will be of crucial importance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is being very fair. I understand the general principle, but he must not go into details about the director-general, and so on.

Mr. Kaufman: What I am saying relates directly to one of the clauses of the Bill which would affect the way in which ITV franchises are disposed of, and that would have a direct effect on the programming, quality, independence and integrity of the BBC. It is for that reason, which is directly related to the content of the Bill, that I say that the new director-general of the BBC will have to be a tough and independent person, with sufficient self-confidence to stand up not only to political pressure from any political party, but, if necessary, to the very governors who make the appointment. The future of an indispensable national institution rests on that decision, and the board of governors must not fall short of what the occasion demands.
Let me make it clear that the Labour party wants a BBC which is dedicated and committed to independence and high standards and two ITV channels which will seek to maintain comparable standards. That is why a Labour Government will ensure protection of the present structure of Channel 4. A Labour Government will have nothing to do with any proposals to auction off the ITV franchises. We reject such a proposal totally and outright.
However, we believe that improvements can and should be made in the present method of allocating ITV franchises. We believe that the process should be more open and more accountable. Applicants should know more precisely what is expected of them, and if they fail they should know more clearly why that is so. Therefore, we shall consult the unions in the industry, the IBA and all the others who have helpful proposals to make to ensure that this highly important process of allocation of franchises is more appropriate to a democratic society, in which freedom of information should extend to the activities of public bodies.
The Bill could be dangerous as an Act in the hands of a Conservative Government. However, it will be of great importance in enabling a Labour Government to assist in making possible a television structure for the next decade and beyond which will maintain high standards and enhance democracy and freedom of expression in Britain. For that reason, we shall not oppose it.

Mr. Julian Critchley: I appreciate that there is a fine line in this debate between the problems of the IBA and of the BBC. I hope that you will be kind to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I take a leaf out of the Secretary of State's book. He began by saying that he has indexed the licence fee of the BBC. Handsome though that may be, it is not handsome enough, because it means that in real terms, over the years, the BBC will suffer from a diminishing income, and with that will be less able to compete with the IBA.
The second point that the Secretary of State made was about the Peacock committee recommendation that in future the contracts for the independent programme

companies should be put out to competition. Many Conservative Members feel that that would be a retrograde step, and that it could lead only to the expansion of the media empires of people like Murdoch, who would be able to range from the printed word into television and purchase it. That would not be of universal advantage.

Mr. Clement Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman quantify "people like Murdoch"? Who else is there?

Mr. Critchley: There are one or two fellow Australians who might, at first glimpse, be indistinguishable from Mr. Murdoch.
It would be a grave error were our television companies to fall under the direct control of foreign-based companies in the way that many of our newspapers have in recent years. The Conservative party should look pretty severely at any of the conditions that may hedge round the ownership of massive media companies.
The Secretary of State mentioned, en passant, Channel 4.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Before my hon. Friend passes from that important point, does he agree that it has implications not just for television, but far-reaching implications for the British film industry which is much patronised by Channel 4, for example?

Mr. Critchley: Over the years I have become something of a nationalist, in the French sense. I do not think that a French Government of any complexion would be prepared to look happily upon the ownership of the French media by Australian or American entrepreneurs. That may be a lesson which the United Kingdom Government, of whatever party, could happily absorb.
Channel 4 is a Conservative conception. The former Home Secretary, who now leads the House of Lords with such distinction, is the father of the fourth channel. Its success is something for which our great Government can claim credit, and, alarming though the fourth channel might be to Mrs. Whitehouse from time to time, it has greatly added to the cultural scene in the United Kingdom. Therefore, we must be careful not to muck about with its financial arrangements in a way that could conceivably be to its detriment.
Members of the IBA sometimes see in advance the programmes that are made by the independent programme companies. Should not the governors of the BBC make a habit of doing so? Rule by the stable door has not proved to be successful.
The setting up of commercial television nearly 30 years ago was one of the great achievements of the old Conservative party. The running battle which has been fought more recently between Conservative central office and the BBC cannot be so described. It has muddied the waters. We are in danger of not being able to distinguish between state and public service broadcasting. We have, alas, an Under-Secretary with responsibilities for sport—thank God we have not yet appointed a Minister for Information.
The role of the governors of the BBC, like that of the members of the IBA, should be to act as a shock absorber. Not only should they be shock absorbers between the BBC and the Government, but they should be encouraged to play a more active role within the BBC. The governors


must, from time to time, flex their muscles. They should make a habit of seeing some programmes in advance and not just react to events. The governors of the BBC need to regain control of the BBC, not only from the special branch, but from many of the programme producers.
The problem facing the BBC—this is different from the problem facing the independent companies and the IBA—is to resolve the difficulty of how to keep editorial control over so vast an output. There is a need to provide managerial and editorial control without excessive supervision. The problem is that there are part-time governors of the BBC who, with the help of executives working full-time, have to control a massive output.
The parliamentary Lobby, as is well known, meets most days in the Palace of Westminster in a room from which Members of Parliament are debarred. I have often wondered what might happen were I to turn up at the Lobby briefing early one morning. I am told that the Lobby, steered by No 10, claimed that all the 12 members of the board of governors of the BBC are "acceptable" to the Prime Minister and No. 10 Downing street. "Acceptable"? That is a strangely disturbing word to have used. All 12 members have been appointed by the Prime Minister. Should all 12 be equally acceptable to the leaders of the Opposition parties? Should Prime Ministers, of whatever persuasion, treat the BBC as if it were the United States supreme court, to be filled by presidential nominees? Is there no other way in which the governors of the BBC and IBA might be appointed, save from No. 10 Downing street directly? It is worth a thought.
To a politician, every broadcast is a party political broadcast. We have grown thin skinned in recent years. We have witnessed the growth of political intolerance as the gap between the Labour and Conservative parties has widened, the sad end to the old consensus, and the advent of three-party politics. At the same time, our great newspapers have fallen into the hands of opinionated and foreign owners.
The BBC is not the state broadcasting corporation. It does not exist to please either Conservative central office or Walworth road. If it offends, as it has in the past, one should only have to raise a telephone and speak to the chairman of the board of governors. Ultimately, independence is not a luxury to be offered to broadcasters but a necessity for our audiences and for democracy. The future of broadcasting is too important to be left to the chairman of our great party.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As ever, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) aims his arrows deftly, and it is only later that one sees the full point of his remarks. I have appointed two governors of the BBC. One was suggested by the Foreign Secretary, so that there should be experience for the overseas services, and the other I determined myself. I cannot recall the Prime Minister playing any part in the choice. If ever I have the chance again—I doubt that I shall—when he is in his older and more mature years, I would look forward to appointing the hon. Member for Aldershot.
The hon. Gentleman made a remark about Channel 4 and Lord Whitelaw. I must admit to paternity of Channel 4, although the Annan report played a bigger part. Its sex, or structure, was determined by Lord Whitelaw, but it did not come just from one Government.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about indexing the licence fee. The BBC asked for that in 1978, and we turned it down. I doubt whether it wants it now and it will not remove the problem of the licence fee in the years ahead.
It is right that there should be the delay set out in the Bill. It is probably inevitable. It is easier said than done, to move quickly in these matters, because profound technical changes are taking place. I hope that the Government are moving slowly because there will he a general election. Nobody knows what the result will be. but there will be a different political complexion and a different feel in the House. For that reason alone, it is right that there should be delay.
I have three questions. I am no longer involved in broadcasting on a day-to-day basis, and sometimes I read or listen to remarks made by the Home Secretary and his Ministers, or read about changes that have taken place and cannot be clear what they involve. What about the rolling review? I thought—I am obviously wrong—that this was to change profoundly the nature of the way that new contracts are awarded every 10 years. Are the rolling reviews that take place at the moment based on legislation, or are they administrative changes made by the IBA? Are the reports made about the various companies made public? I hear them discussed when I sometimes mix in television circles, and I hear that, as part of the rolling review, the IBA has called in a certain company and has made changes in what it is doing. How many changes have been made so far, who carries them out, and how do they fit into the way that new contracts are awarded?
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made an interesting point. I can recall—my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will remember this as he hails originally from Yorkshire and knows a great deal about that side of affairs in Yorkshire—that about five or six years ago Yorkshire Television and Tyne Tees were allied, However, the IBA stepped in and told them that the marriage, however tenuous on financial grounds, had to be broken up. There is talk about a major company taking over Border Television, but would this not require the approval of the IBA?
My second point is about competitive tendering. I am against it because it is one of the silliest and most worrying proposals in the Peacock report. It had a good agenda, but anyone who gives a minute's thought to the problems of broadcasting and the technical changes that are coming about can write an agenda. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton that competitive tendering is a sure way to debase the coinage of programmes.
My third point is about direct broadcasting by satellite. As I travel about the country, I see in the back gardens of houses dishes of quite a size. I have been thinking of having one on the roof of my house in Southwark, so I declare an interest. What does one have to do to get a satellite receiving dish in one's garden? If one wrote to one's local authority, would it know what one was talking about'? Would it need planning permission? What are the rules about these installations? Would anyone stop me'? Do I have to get approval? I would love to listen to the Irish satellite that will apparently be put up shortly.
This is a short but important Bill. In case any of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have any ideas about this, I look forward to reading the Committee reports.

Mr. Tim Brinton: I remind hon. Members of my interest in these matters in that I work for the BBC and ITV. I am a member of the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians and Equity. Therefore, I am up to my neck in it.
My predominant thought about the Bill is that, much though I support it, it seems to me that we are working from the wrong ball park for the future. Whenever I have spoken about broadcasting in the House, I have noticed that hon. Members tend to take the position as it is today. In 1977, there was no Channel 4, there was a hot debate about Annan, there were hardly any video recording machines in domestic households, local radio was only just beginning to develop in full, and the whole scene was different. To look on today's Bill, which adjusts the licences and the length of them, in the context that perhaps in 10 years' time we shall be looking at anything vaguely similar to today's broadcasting patterns of two BBC channels, two ITV channels, and so on, is not the right calculation to make. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that the purpose of extending these contracts is to look at the position more closely, in more detail, and above all else—quite rightly—after a general election.
Over the years, the Home Office has developed a tradition on broadcasting policy. It brings it forward piecemeal, but, after the general election, when these matters are looked at in the context of what we shall do about the methods by which we award contracts to the terrestrial franchises of ITV, that Bill must incorporate everything else, or it will not work.
Some of the weightiest decisions since the foundation of the BBC in the 1920s must be made about what we want from public service broadcasting. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) made an interesting distinction between state broadcasting and public service broadcasting. That is a subject of great debate and, in some senses, it is responsible for some of the friction between broadcasters and politicians.
Recently I was at a broadcasting conference, as was the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan)—who is listening closely to this debate. I do not believe that he was present when I said that the first word of the initials BBC was British and there was a hiss from the back of the hall. Lord Annan referred to the problem of defining the role of the BBC. It must be independent. It must be free from all spheres of influence, particularly governmental, but it must, at the same time, reflect the state. In that sense I quarrel with the distinction between the two roles as put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot. Public service broadcasting must not be a member of the Establishment nor party to it in any way, but generally it must reflect the state.

Mr. Critchley: Would my hon. Friend accept, as a compromise, that the BBC should reflect the liberal consensus and exclude extremes?

Mr. Brinton: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me down the path of liberal consensus. One of the reasons that prompted me to enter this House 12 years ago was that I felt that the general consensus was not working and was not the way forward. I do not believe that the liberal consensus would be a true reflection of the wishes of all the British people. It is much more subtle, especially when

applied to broadcasting. A broadcaster must present the news objectively and factually and his comments must clearly be shown to be comments only. He must present arguments fairly from all points of view, including, I hasten to add, the liberal consensus view. The broadcaster should not just be a guardian of the air, if I can use that simile, for that would ignore other important matters.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) earlier expressed his understandable anxiety about the smaller television stations such as Border Television. Once again, I should like to look at the crystal ball. I can understand his anxiety, but if we consider the pattern of progress in technology and electronics it is certain that, in the next 10 years, there will be a fragmentation in television in the same way as occurred in radio. There may be changes of all sorts which may affect Border Television, but I believe that local television, which I believe that the hon. Member for Workington wants, is something that will continue to develop and gain strength.
In the next 10 years, rather than four terrestrially transmitted channels there may be as many as 50 channels coming from satellites fed through increasingly popular cable services and competing directly with our public service broadcasting—and by that I mean both the BBC and ITV. The question to which we should address ourselves in this all too short a debate is whether we expect the BBC and ITV to compete directly for viewers with, in effect, no control.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said that he wants a satellite dish on the top of his house. That dish may receive programmes with all sorts of unrestricted commercials. For example, we may even have the ludicrous position of 50 minutes of commercials with 10-minute programmes in between. If that and other pap programmes became popular, how would ITV make a living? Any future Government must address that question in considerable detail.
There appear to be two ways forward. The first is that ITV should have unrestricted competition, and I would be very sorry if that happened. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot that there would be a considerable lowering of programme standards and we would lose Channel 4 and programmes such as "Brideshead Revisited". What would we do with the BBC? Would it sit on a little island making middle-class liberal consensus programmes and nothing else? We must recognise the limitations of public service broadcasting in the years ahead and plan accordingly.
If, in two or three years' time, Parliament felt strongly that it must protect the styles of ITV and the BBC to the full, with two channels, that will need considerable support. If there is to be a BBC licence fee, which can support one national BBC channel making general programmes of a popular as well as a less popular nature, with the other channel paid for through subscriptions, we might apply the same sort of answer to ITV—which is primarily what we are discussing today. It would not take much of a touch on the popularity switch for Channel 4 to be able to pay for itself.
One of the most interesting arguments to consider is if Channel 4 could up the rating, by five points or whatever may be involved, to make it pay for itself, would that destroy what I believe to be the most interesting television service in the world? I certainly watch it a great deal and I do not want to destroy it. I believe that we must work out ways to protect it. It may be that much of the main


channel ITV output is popular, and we may conclude that it should compete directly with the popular major channels that, in 10 years' time, will be coming in from the rest of the world as, I hope, we shall be sending out our programmes.
I welcome the emergence of Superchannel, which the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South will discover he can receive with a smaller dish. I also welcome the news that the BBC's external services are thinking about a satellite news service to the rest of the world. All those developments must he included in our deliberations.
Comments have been made about the governors of the BBC and the members of the IBA, especially to the effect that the governors of the BBC should study some of the programmes before they are transmitted. I wonder whether it is time for an even greater change than has been mentioned today—and it has been mentioned before—in that we should think of changing the structure of public service broadcasting so that, in the fullness of time, there is a television authority that regulates both the BBC and the ITV. Perhaps it could be made up of people similar to those who currently serve the BBC and IBA. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) suggested in a previous debate, perhaps the board of management of the BBC should include some non-executive directors who could be lay members. We would then achieve a regulating body that is remote from the day-to-day executive work of the board of management of the BBC, something perhaps that is desirable. Currently, many of the troubles of the BBC stem from the fact that the governors are neither with the board of management nor right outside it—they do not know where they lie. The same applies to the members of the IBA, especially with their connections with Channel 4.
I shall not delay the House any further. I think that this is an interesting first step and I hope that, while this legislation gives us time, that time will be used to the full to discuss all those wider questions.

Mr. Norman Buchan: We tend to forget that this small Bill flows directly from the Peacock report. The Peacock committee was established not to prepare a blueprint for the future, although it did that, but to deal with funding and finance.
The Bill was introduced in another place by Lord Beaverbrook. It arises out of the Peacock committee, but not because of the changes which that committee advocated. The Bill deals with keeping open the options for change. It is a significant Bill, although it is small. It deals with the purpose of the Peacock committee and with what happened as a result of that committee's report.
I have argued on behalf of the Labour party that the Government have put the cart before the horse. The Government gave that committee the remit of considering how we should fund the BBC. Clearly, the Prime Minister—that great abstentionist who does not want to interfere with broadcasting— was thinking about introducing advertising to help fund the BBC. We argued that that was putting the cart before the horse. We feared that decisions about how to fund broadcasting would preempt decisions about the nature of future broadcasting. We argued that we should take a quick look at the changes in broadcasting before the problem of financing was tackled. That is what is now happening. The committee was asked to examine alternative financing methods, other

than public, so it was pushed towards recommending private financing, whether by subscription or advertising. The pattern of thinking is now being established.
The great technological shift that will alter the pattern dramatically is broadcasting by satellite. Despite that, there is little discussion about how it should be used in public service broadcasting. It is already being considered in the allocation of franchises. Even in an apparently minor Bill such as this we should consider the nature of broadcasting for the future. A type of alliance exists among the more civilised hon. Members—some Tories and the entire membership of the Labour party—in relation to public service broadcasting.
I want to follow the arguments used by the hon. Members for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) and for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). I believe that there is a dichotomy between state broadcasting and public service broadcasting. The hon. Member for Gravesham said that there was some hissing at a broadcasting conference. I suspect that he was talking about one of the two conferences in Edinburgh, last year and the year before. I think that the hissing must have come from some Scottish nationalists at the back of the hall who were looking for a different solution for broadcasting.
There is a separation between broadcasting and the apparatus of the state. This Government are trying to narrow that gap by using extra-legal methods. They are trying, not to differentiate between public service broadcasting and the state, but to bring public service broadcasting under the effective control, if not the legal control, of the Government and particularly of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We saw that in relation to "Real Lives" two years ago. There is a distinction between what happened over that and what happened over the Zircon film.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying hard to relate what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the Bill's provisions, but I am finding it difficult. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Bill, which deals with the IBA and contracts.

Mr. Buchan: With respect—I mean that—Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Home Secretary said that the Bill would give us time to examine the options. We are now looking at the options. If we did not want to do that there would be no reason for the Bill. We are dealing with a crucial question. I was saying that two years ago it was necessary for the Home Secretary publicly to intervene and that the BBC had capitulated over Zircon. It applied a form of self-censorship—the most dangerous of all censorships.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Equally with great respect, I cannot see how interference wig h the BBC relates in any way to the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Buchan: I shall do my best to keep within the proper bounds of discussion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There are two questions to be asked about the options. The first is whether it is necessary to extend the time for consideration at all. I am not sure whether we need three years, but if we are to allow that extension we must use the time to examine the options.
For independent television the crucial element is direct broadcasting by satellite and in that connection the great problem is how to control it. We are told that the British


external service is considering satellite broadcasting. Satellites from other countries are also being used. There is no doubt that three or four entrepreneurs will control the structure. It has been said that France would never tolerate interference from foreign broadcasting authorities, but not even the chauvinistic French are able to prevent that. Berlusconi is an obvious case in point, dictating as he does the future of French and Italian television.

Mr. Brinton: It has been said before, but is this not unlike the problem faced by the medieval monks who, 100 or 150 years after the printing press was invented and publishing became free to anyone who had the technology, tried to protect their vested interest?

Mr. Buchan: The same analogy was used by Professor Peacock in his report. He compared the opening up of freedom in broadcasting with the freedom of the press after 1694 and the Censorship Act. I know my history, even though I am a member of the Labour party.
Let us examine the freedoms which have been achieved. We have handed over 80 per cent. of the popular dissemination of news and information in this country to three people—Maxwell, Murdoch and Stevens. So much for the opening up of publishing and the monopoly of the monks. It has been the monopoly of the masters and is an even greater monopoly than that which occurred in medieval times.
The analogy is fatal because it says more than Peacock thought it would say. It says that the only way to prevent monopoly is to ensure that there is regulated broadcasting. It should be regulated in order to give freedom of access and diversity of programmes and to prevent monopoly. We are concerned with the freedom of the listener, but he is concerned with the freedom of the contractor. Freedom for the contractor means that he has an eventual monopoly. The 3 million or 4 million readers of The Sun matter more than the one Murdoch who sits in Wapping. That is the kind of freedom that we ought to seek.
The hon. Member for Gravesham is right; it is a fair analogy. We have seen what happened in the past and are determined that it shall not happen in the future through direct broadcasting by satellite. If it applied only to Britain we could deal with it, but it has an international aspect. How can we control that? I have seen direct broadcasting by satellite relayed by cable to some of the poorest countries in the world. Parents in those countries who have no running water in their huts have said to me, "My child wants a computer for Christmas." That is because they see the advertising of the consumer society, the aculturisation of people. Therefore, we must not only find a British method to deal with it but must rapidly develop an international method of dealing with it.
We in the Labour party have made a tiny start towards finding a solution. If we do not find a solution, then, just as our popular press is controlled by three people, the whole of broadcasting by satellite in western Europe will be controlled by five people—Maxwell, Murdoch, Stevens, Berlusconi and one other. That is what will happen. That is the sort of problem we are facing.
We have immediate options in relation to Channel 4. Perhaps this is the reason for the three-year postponement, but I hope not. I agree with those who say that the competition for advertising would be fatal. All the

analyses that we have made and that others have made about the pool of broadcasting revenue suggest that the opening up of competition by Channel 4 would do two things: first, it would weaken the regional element of all our commercial broadcasting—and local broadcasting is more expensive than buying in programmes; secondly, it would force Channel 4 to compete for the greatest amount of advertising and, instead of Channel 4 providing a fraction of our television programmes, it would have to compete with the lowest common denominator.
The second reason for the delay is to allow time for the examination of the franchises. I question delay, because the whole purpose of the franchises was to analyse the work and the methods and the success or otherwise of the independent companies so that a franchise could be withdrawn if a company was not up to the mark. Once we begin to extend that, we remove the possibility of a rapid shift in some of the worst of the stations and encourage them to do what sometimes happened in the past in Scottish television—a period of mediocrity followed by a frenetic 18 months of promises about programmes and ideas for the future that are never implemented.
We ought not to be too happy about an extension. It is made necessary not because of that for which the Peacock committee was set up, but for that which the Peacock committee eventually encouraged the Government to go ahead with—a major change in the structures of broadcasting. All of those major changes are pulling us away from public service broadcasting.
Indexing will not be a stratification of the broadcasting open to the BBC because developing technology does not necessarily get any cheaper and indexing will mean that an inferior product will be forced upon the BBC. Most important, it will be unable to compete in new technology with commercial companies.
We are moving very rapidly. After the Peacock evidence I hoped that I might continue with this subject for a little longer than I have been allowed to do. I had hoped that by this time the Labour party would have established a forward thinking working party. I hope to get some assurance from my Front Bench about that.
Broadcasting has been in the forefront of political thought over the last few weeks. That is because of the events surrounding "The Secret Society" programmes and the conduct of the Government in relation to those programmes. If we are to defend and develop public service broadcasting, we must prevent the formation of a Ministry of Information. It would be right to remove broadcasting from the Home Office. We can no longer safely leave broadcasting in the hands of the Home Office, and that is the reason for my argument that it should be under a proper Ministry of the Arts. That could still happen. Sadly, the events of the last few weeks show that the quicker it happens the better for all of us.

Mr. William Powell: This is the first time that I have had the privilege of being called to speak on the Second Reading of any Bill as early as 4.56 pm. Further, it is the first time, and it may be the only time, when I shall be called as the fifth person to speak from the Back Benches on Second Reading so early in the afternoon. That shows that the Bill is relatively uncontroversial. It is a modest measure, but being modest I welcome it. I wish


that we had more legislation that caused so little controversy. It is often the case that when a Bill tries to do too much it runs into difficulties.
All hon. Members will agree that there is absolutely no danger of this Bill attempting to do too much. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward a measure of this nature. I welcome the Bill and hope that the House will give it an unopposed Second Reading. We have a procedure whereby relatively uncontroversial and modest measures can be referred to a Second Reading Committee upstairs. The decisions about whether Bills are referred to that Committee or are taken on the Floor of the House are, I imagine, taken through the usual channels. I hope that on reflection those responsible for timetabling this Bill to take up the time of the House will perhaps realise that it might have been more sensible to take it upstairs to a Second Reading Committee. That happens to some Bills and it is unfortunate that more Bills cannot bedealt with it in that way.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a Bill which will fundamentally affect the whole of broadcasting should not be debated on the Floor of the House just because there appears to be no open desire to vote against it? I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Floor of the House is and ought to be and will remain the most important part of the Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. No doubt the matters that she mentions were in the mind of the business managers when they decided that it was appropriate for this Bill to he dealt with on the Floor of the House. I have put the contrary argument and I hope that the procedure for Second Reading Committees upstairs can be used more widely than currently happens. That is my view but, of course. the hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to disagree. She may he right, but I suggest that this Bill could have been dealt with in the way that I have outlined.
This is a holding Bill because it provides more time to consider matters vital to the future of public service broadcasting than is allowed by current statutory arrangements. It is right and proper that that should happen. The Peacock report made it plain to those who are not specialists in broadcasting that the fundamental issues which will face public service broadcasting will have a much greater potential impact than any other matters have in the past generation.
Given the political timetable, with a general election likely to intervene in less than two years, it is only right and proper that whichever party forms the Government—naturally, I hope that it will be mine—has the proper time to consider these important matters.
Current ITV contracts are to be extended for three years. The Peacock committee made it plain that the Government and Parliament had to face serious and important issues in deciding how ITV franchises should be allocated. 1 welcome the fact that under the Bill it will be possible for that allocation to be considered at more leisure than they would have been under the very tight programme that would otherwise have existed.
I have considerable sympathy for many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). I wished—perhaps this is a salutary point for

any politician — that he would develop some of his points at greater length. I for one would have been happy to listen to him uninterrupted for a longer period.
Direct service broadcasting offers enormous opportunities to the viewer. All those opportunities are subject to the type of consideration to which the hon. Member for Paisley, South referred. In general, I welcome the opportunity to have a much broader range of programmes. I am one of those who often bewails the absence of choice, even with four channels. I welcome the fact that this debate is likely to be shorter than many Second Reading debates because I hope that other right hon. and hon. Members and I will be able this evening to watch one of the outstanding programmes on television —"Rumpole of the Bailey". I hope that not only the existing channels but other companies will he able to establish a continuous series of "Rumpoles of the Bailey" or similar programmes. The Bill gives us an opportunity for more mature reflection on the issues which we must face. For those reasons, I hope that the House will give it an unopposed Second Reading.

Mr. Clement Freud: This is a very minor Bill. It is not one with which the alliance or anyone else disagrees. However, I deplore the fact that it is such a minor Bill and that it lacks courage, foresight and dynamism. As hon. Members have said, it is another example of piecemeal legislation. It asks us to wait and see. It allows the Government — 1 suppose that this is important to any Government before an election — to say, "Our hands are clean," even if they have to add, "We have not done anything."
I was disturbed by the Home Secretary's answer to an intervention by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government proposed to introduce a comprehensive Broadcasting Bill early in the next Session. Is it Conservative policy to introduce some non-specific Bill? Since we have a Broadcasting Bill before us, it is the Home Secretary's duty to give us a little more information before he tries to put this piecemeal legislation on the statute book. The House deserves to know what the legislation will do to preserve the quality of television stations such as Border—small, excellent, vulnerable and open to predators. We deserve to know whether the forthcoming legislation will seek to sell off independent television companies and whether it will use money or standards as the criterion for sale.
It is terribly wrong to allow the Peacock recommendations to lie idle without any word from the Government other than, "We wish to hear the debate." All hon. Members want to know how the Government will react to the Peacock suggestions. Will the Government preserve the opportunities for independent television producers and for independent producers generally? A move within market place economics will not be encouraging in any way to those who make independent programmes.
Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, intervened to say that the Bill does not concern the BBC. I believe that any debate on broadcasting cannot isolate one form of broadcasting because one form reverberates substantially on all other forms. Hon. Members are disturbed by what is happening in the BBC and by the


concept of "acceptability of BBC governors" without a move to bring in governors, as there are hon. Members whose job it is to probe what is happening.
I am concerned about the centralisation of television production in the south-east of England. We want to know what the Government will do about this. It is extraordinary that, in every facet of Government responsibility, people are being directed without much concern about where the expertise lies.
The whole nation is interested in community radio, and that includes even those people who did not want community broadcasting to come about — but it ill becomes the Government to make a promise, to allow people to spend substantial sums on research and development and then withdraw that promise and say, "There will not be any community radio for the time being; you must wait and see."
We are also concerned about subscription television because we fear that it could lead to an even more divided society. Some people might be unable to see "Rumpole of the Bailey" because they do not have the money to buy the programmes that their neighbours watch. It is essential that the concept of subscription television will be to top up, and not to take from people their right to view.
What they propose to do to Channel 4 is perhaps the most brilliant example of the Government's inability to leave good things alone. It is one of the most successful of broadcasting enterprises. Why do the Government not leave it to flourish instead of attempting to make it a commercial, avaricious begetter of its own advertising? That would not do any service whatsoever for Channel 4 but would jeopardise something of great and substantial quality.

Mr. Hurd: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great care. From what he has said, I derive that he would like us to rest absolutely on the status quo. I find that a dim and dismal outlook. If I had produced a set of detailed proposals on the matters that are before the House today, he knows that he would have been among the first to say "How monstrous of this dictatorship of a Government to ram all these proposals down our throats without giving us an opportunity to discuss them or to have any public debate." We are acting in the opposite way and in a liberal manner we are simply saying that, whatever the position immediately after the election, a Government will need time to prepare proposals and to think them through. The Bill enables that to happen. That is what it is about.

Mr. Freud: It is rewarding to hear a Conservative Home Secretary arguing for change. I said clearly that I wished the status quo to remain for Channel 4, which has quality and which, I believe, is brilliant.
My hon. Friends and I also wish to know what plans the Government have in respect of the proposals in the Peacock report. I do not agree that saying, "Wait and see" and, "We need more discussion" is remotely satisfying. If commercial criteria are used, we shall have "The Price is Right" from wall to wall. Conservative Members have suggested that we might get 50 minutes of commercials, followed by 10 minutes of programming. My great fear is that we shall go back to what happened when commercial television started and that there will be advertising magazines, in whatever disguise they may come.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) intimated that he did not wish to serve on the Committee. I cannot imagine that that would be an onerous task or that the Committee will have many sittings because this is a holding Bill.
We accept that DBS needs more time to attract sufficient capital. If the carrot is not big enough, one must attempt to make it bigger by shovelling on the manure and then seeing whether somebody will grasp it.
It is absolutely right to extend the ITV franchises because there is no evidence of abuse by any contractor. They deserve nothing less than that three years' bonus, and that is what their putative successors will need to prepare their case.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I support the Bill, but are sorry that it is not a more courageous or radical measure.

Mr. John Powley: It is a particular pleasure for me to have the opportunity to make a modest speech on this Bill. I crave the indulgence of the House for a moment because I suspect—I am open to correction from any hon. Member if I am not right—that I am the only qualified radio and television service engineer who is a Member of this House. I am not advertising any services in saying that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have a personal interest in broadcasting which many other hon. Members may not share. I also suspect that I may be one of only a few hon. Members to have run a radio and television business, as I did for 24 years, before becoming a Member of the House. Therefore, I take pleasure in making a modest contribution to the debate.
When the House debated the Peacock report I was unable to speak because of the interests of other hon. and right hon. Members. I should now like to say a few words about the part of the Bill that relates to direct broadcasting by satellite. I welcome the measures to extend the period under discussion. There must be tremendous advantages from the extension of direct broadcasting for all those in the trade, for the manufacturers of the equipment and of the receivers that will be used when satellite broadcasting becomes more readily available, and, indeed, for the public. However, anybody with any experience will know that considerable technical problems remain to be resolved.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the IBA members of the consortium which grants the franchise. My own local independent television station of Anglia is a member of that consortium. I am pleased to see that, because East Anglia is often regarded as the backwater of events. That is not the case and I am pleased that Anglia Television is involved in such an exciting concept.
When we get direct broadcasting by satellite the public will be able to enjoy a further additional service through the type of programme that they can watch. Indeed, from a professional point of view, although not from a financial, professional, point of view, I have long advocated the more extensive use of the television set in one's home as a means of communication. Direct broadcasting by satellite will mean that the type of programme, entertainment and information that is available on television will be greatly extended. I have no doubt that there are a great many other uses to which the television


set could be put, in addition to receiving direct broadcasting from satellites. Demand for television sets will increase in line with the increase in DBS.
About 98 per cent. of all the homes in the country have a television set of one sort or another, the overwhelming majority of which are colour television receivers. We know that the two-television set family is fairly commonplace today. I suppose that it is not uncommon for some homes to have three or four television receivers. Being in the position to which I referred earlier. I must confess that we have five sets in our home. Each of my three children has a television receiver in their bedroom, we have the main one in the lounge and another in the study. That is an example of the increasing use of the television set by individual members of the family. Television is not just for entertainment; it conveys knowledge. Broadcasters can widen the range of programmes available and DBS is just one means by which the volume of information available can be extended.
It follows that because of the amount of investment by the various companies in the DBS franchise, because there are considerable technical problems for the manufacturers of the equipment and because the DBS system needs greater public acceptance, we need extra time. The consortium needs to advertise the advantages of DBS. It is undoubtedly right for everyone to extend the period and I hope that that will not be a matter for dissent. I support all the other parts of the Bill and hope that it will receive a favourable passage through the House.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: This is only a small Bill if one considers the foundations of a building to be unremarkable because they go in a small hole. However, I need to know much more about what will be built on it before I dismiss it as a modest measure.
The Bill is important. It gives the Home Secretary an opportunity to state in no uncertain terms how he sees the problems of the breathing space that the Bill provides. I would have liked him today to have said, "If we are to have DBS—there are already considerable difficulties because people are not prepared to invest millions in this sort of development without knowing what they will gain from it—I want to use this time to consider its political and financial implications. Then we shall have a clear view of where we shall go in the interim three years."
I am worried that today we have seen a little demonstration of the salami technique. The Government have said, "We haven't had time to hear the views of all the interested parties, so we shall extend the time to the companies concerned and ask everyone what they want to do. We shall then have an idea of their forward planning." That seems both sensible and civilised. The Home Secretary is a man of wit and culture which, luckily for his political career, he succeeds in hiding from the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, it is not good enough simply to say, "We shall have a major development, but the Government do not have a clear political line."
Once we have DBS, Parliament must have in place a series of simple but wide-reaching laws to control the way in which the signals are redirected into the United Kingdom. We must think seriously about controls for the public broadcasting system and the IBA. 1 do not want us under any circumstances to move towards open tender for commercial' companies. I do not want to hear that suggestion either in the House or anywhere else. A danger

of that is that as soon as the IBA is told to accept the largest tender, the reason for its existence is wiped out. Even a continuing rolling programme of extending contracts for commercial companies opens up considerable questions about the political and cultural controls that will operate on those companies for the franchise. That has not been fully discussed.
Above all, if the House has no control over DBS, Mrs. Whitehouse will not come to the House and witter on about the problems of obscenity because we shall have no control over the signals. Nor shall we have control over the news content. Hon. Members who have said today that they have seen the future and it looks like a dingo were not exaggerating. We must contend, not only with Mr. Murdoch, but with news centres rather like that run by Ted Turner of Atlanta. have no desire to see the newscasting services of the television stations follow the line of our newspapers.
The reason why so few people take their news from the popular press is simply because it does not contain any news. No one would know from most of the tabloid newspapers that Parliament even existed until there is a screaming, immediate, social problem. The newspapers manage to wheel in rent-a-quotes from both sides of the Chamber which are a fortissimo expression of a minute, and usually superficial, nature. We have been able to deal with that deterioration in the news-gathering centres of the nation because most people still see the news on one of the television channels. They get their views and news largely from either the IBA or BBC news which still strive, no matter what the ruling party says, to maintain a reasonable balance on political, religious and delicate social problems.
What shall we do if DBS becomes a market place where those with money can move with no restraint on the content of their programmes? The Government have not made that clear. They have not said today, "We realise that this is an extremely limited measure, but we shall immediately set up a working party to consider all its implications." There has been no such suggestion. What will the Government do in relation to the IBA? If they are to change the way in which the franchises are extended or debated, let them set out those new changes so that the house can debate them openly. If they are to use this opportunity to change the financing of Channel 4, for example, let them come here and say so openly and let them give us the opportunity to say that Channel 4 should not compete with ITV for advertising revenue and that it should be given a specific mandate to involve itself in even more independent producers' work than at present. Channel 4 has done a remarkable job in opening up broadcasting to independent producers. The Bill provides the opportunity for us to say that we shall look actively at ways of widening opportunities for producers across the board.
I should like to see a Bill to guarantee a reasonable percentage — 25 per cent. or more, if necessary — of independent air time to producers in both services. The BBC is being dealt with in a hole-in-the-corner manner. Mr. Deputy Speaker has already pointed out that, although we see a clear link in the Government's attitudes to the BBC and ITV, now is not the time to discuss it. In reality, the Minister of State cares about the quality of broadcasting and telecasting in the United Kingdom. He, and certainly the Home Secretary, have a duty to set out how the Government see the future of broadcasting. They are not doing that. They are giving us the impression that


somewhere along the line they will squeeze the BBC's finances but open up the IBA's responsibilities in such a way that it will do away with any element of control and simply make it a market place transaction. That is extremely dangerous. I believe that one would get continuous broadcasting of a sort that most hon. Members would find fairly sleazy and unacceptable. If the Minister has any doubt, let him see what happened in Italy when Radio Audiovisione Italiana was forced to concede air time in a completely different way and there was a constant eruption of soft porn and semi-porn films running for 24 hours. That is the reality of broadcasting that is left to the market place.
The idea that more is better is disproved simply by looking at what happens in America. Anybody who has seen the hundreds of channels and the rubbish that is churned out hour after hour knows that choice is not necessarily a way of improving the quality of the production material. Quality depends on the money that is available and the expertise and it certainly depends, above all, on the restraints that Government put on the hours of broadcasting, the type of broadcasting and the responsibilities that we have always accepted were part of a public service effort in this country.
The BBC and IBA contribute to extremely high quality programme material because of the legislation which, over the years, has been discussed by the House. The two are inextricably linked. I see no reason now why, in a country that imports vast amounts of electronic hardware, we cannot be talking about putting extra taxes on some of those things to maintain the quality of our material. I see no reason why, in the next three years, we should not be energetically examining other ways of raising cash for independent producers and making sure that the work that comes forward is of a standard that we find acceptable.
I give the Minister one warning. I do not believe that the House will accept a Government diktat which hands over control of DBS to any system which cannot be controlled in some way by the House of Commons. I do not believe that public service broadcasting should ever be restricted on the basis of whichever political party is in charge. Indeed, if I bought only newspapers with which I agreed and which have not insulted me and watched only programmes with which I was in absolute agreement, I would have an extremely limited reading and viewing programme.
I believe that the Government have a responsibility over and above simply saying, "Look, we shall give them three more years and then decide what will happen." No one knows what electronic developments will be created between now and the end of the period of the franchise, but we should be debating the political implications here and now and we are not doing so. There may be a great future for someone who creates a marvellous way of blocking the broadcasting from DBS systems that put out the 50 minutes of advertisements with which we have been threatened. Who knows? However, until we sit down seriously and think about the implications, it is not good enough to say, "This is a modest measure. Let it go through because we are all in agreement and it does not upset anybody." It upsets me simply because it is so empty and poor and, if I may say, such a cop-out in relation to

the responsibilities of broadcasting. The Minister ought to do better. He has the wit and the intelligence, and he should trust the House of Commons more.

Mr. Michael Brown: It is a great pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She has brought to the debate some of the questions that I acknowledge we have to address and answer. I shall try to answer some of them. I do not suppose that my views will find favour necessarily with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and still less with Opposition Members. However, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is right to draw our attention to the fact that we will have to take some major and fundamental decisions.
In broadcasting debates in the House there are usually large numbers of right hon. and hon. Members wanting to take part and only those with an important or well-known interest seem to have been able to contribute in the past. This debate has afforded many of us, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley), me and others, who have never before spoken in a debate on broadcasting, to contribute.
The scope of the Bill is limited, but it enables us to peer into the future. I welcome the Bill. It is right, to this extent, that the Government should come before the House and say that major decisions will have to be taken in the future and that they are not ready to take those decisions now. It is right and proper that they should extend the period for the individual television companies to be able to carry on for the time being. The proposal regarding DBS is sensible. However, I accept the injunction from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich that there are some fundamental decisions that one day, during the course of the next two or three years, a Government will have to take. Therefore, I recognise that we cannot say that we all agree, let the Bill reach the statute book and then stand back and say that we have done our duty and that is the end of it.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is right to say that technology is moving so fast that a variety of television stations will be available to the public. We have to address ourselves to the extent to which Government and Parliament are to play their part in setting up the framework for what will be inevitable. I welcome the fact that it is inevitable that the viewer, in not so many years to come, will have available to him or her a television set with a large number of selection controls, and will be able to view a wide variety of programmes. Some of those programmes, broadcast by the BBC, will be under the authority of the governors of the BBC. We cannot discuss those today, but they will continue to exist largely along present lines, perhaps with account taken of some of the recommendations of the Peacock committee. There will be the basic structure that we have now, perhaps amended to take account of the views of whichever Government are in power at the time and the individual television companies. We will also have the whole raft of programmes and technology available to people which will enable them to receive programmes from abroad without controls. People will have access to television stations and will be able to purchase programmes of which hon. Members might not approve. Therefore, when future technology offers us a


television screen with a wide variety of pre-selections, to what extent should we seek to control one area of television, the BBC, and, in the case of this Bill—

Mr. Powley: I am interested in my hon. Friend's remarks. Does he agree that we are moving into an era where the television set will be used not only for entertainment provided from this country and others, to which my hon. Friend has rightly referred, but for information technology that will be available in the home from a variety of sources? Ceefax and Oracle are available now and viewdata is available for a minority interest. In the future, there will be other developments that will enable information to be gleaned by the person in the home using a television receiver.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is correct. Indeed, I have the good fortune to live in the Yorkshire Television area and, at night, when the formal broadcasting is finished, we have an example of what the future holds. When Yorkshire Television closes down about midnight, there is then a Yorkshire Television job-finder which flashes up on the screen all the jobs that have been notified to Yorkshire Television by individual companies and, I believe, by the Department of Employment. Yorkshire Television is providing a typical example of what we shall be able to achieve as a result of information technology.
A fundamental issue is the extent to which Parliament and Government are to control the future output of television. I take the opposite view to that which is held by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but she is right to make the House face one of the crucial decisions that will have to be taken. I believe that in future it will be impossible for us to have a strong regulatory system to control the output of television. We shall have the BBC, the ITV companies under the authority of the IBA and a raft of television programmes, and this overall will be beyond the control of the Government or surrogate authorities.
I believe in freedom of choice but I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said about the Italian experience and I accept that programmes will be shown on some channels which none of us in this place would like to watch and which few of our constituents would wish to see. When there is a multiplicity of channels available, the viewer will have to be trusted, and I am left wondering whether it is right to maintain the IBA. The authority is designed rigorously to control the extent of advertising—the number of minutes of it in any one hour—and what is known as subliminal television. That means that there is control of game shows, for example. We might all loathe "The Price is Right", and many of us are suspicious that if there is too much freedom of choice there will be hours and hours of such programmes. We must recognise, however, that "The Price is Right" is an extremely popular programme. The public should have the right to see such a programme if that is their wish.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I accept that there is individuality of taste. I would not wish to watch "EastEnders" but I do not object to others doing so. That is entirely their problem. There is a difference between that programme and material that most people would find unacceptable. That is the difference between controlled broadcasting and that which is not.

Mr. Brown: We have a relatively narrow choice at present and it is probably generally unacceptable to the

viewer that there should be some of the sleazy television that the hon. Lady has described. If there is a wide variety of choice, sleazy television will have to maintain a sufficient level of demand if it is to survive. If viewers turn off their television sets or change to another channel, it will not survive. I am sure that all of us in this place believe in the freedom of speech. On the whole, we believe in the freedom of the press and a wide variety of newspapers being available. Surely we should believe in the freedom of choice when it comes to television.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich talked about America, where there is a wide choice of television programmes. One of the benefits of the American system is that it finds room for a channel that broadcasts the Congress debates in their entirety. Anyone who lives on the east coast, at any rate—for example, in Washington or New York, or in any of the populous east coast states — can turn away from the tremendous amount of advertising that is shown on some channels and the sleazy television that is on others—American television is not all good by any means—and select a channel that is funded by companies and academic foundations and organisations. This channel broadcasts the debates of the House of Representatives from the moment that the House sits until it rises.
We all believe that it is right and proper that the British people should have access to events in the Houses of Paliament. At present there is only limited coverage of our proceedings—half an hour on the radio at night and 20 minutes the following morning with a few minutes devoted to our proceedings in some of the news clips. Of course, with only four channels available to the television companies it is impossible to broadcast the proceedings in this place from 2.30 in the afternoon to 2.30 the following morning. Freedom of choice and a multiplicity of channels would allow those who were interested to follow our proceedings. If market demand were sufficient, a small company would be able to present to the nation by means of the television screen our proceedings in this place.
I accept that there will be programmes that will suit only minorities that some of us may find distasteful. However, many minorities that are currently not served well by television could have programmes shown that would interest them. New technology will force the Government to embrace a multiplicity of channels and to recognise that they can control only to a certain extent. In that context, is it right to have many controls?

Mr. Robin Corbett: May I counsel the hon. Gentleman to be cautious? He should not suggest that something is praiseworthy because it is popular. Perhaps he will bear in mind the dreadful example of The Sun, a sewer newspaper.

Mr. Brown: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. I accept also that many of us in this place would turn up our noses at some of the programmes that our constituents watch in their droves. They may not necessarily be good programmes. Under the market system, however, our constituents will be supplied with the television programmes that they want, and the market will determine whether programmes are successful.

Mr. Chris Smith: think that we would all agree that if people want to watch a programme such as "The Price is Right", it should be available to them. Unfortunately, if nothing is available


except programmes such as "The Price is Right", other programmes that people might want to watch will be driven out.

Mr. Brown: I do not believe that that would happen. There are some programmes that cause offence to some viewers, including Mrs. Mary Whitehouse, and under the system that I am advocating there would be freedom to broadcast that sort of programme. Mrs. Whitehouse, the House and the Government would have to acknowledge that the viewer should have the freedom to watch whatever he wants to see.
There are some television programmes that offend the viewer when they are shown on BBC 1. Offence is caused because the viewer has a one-in-four chance of seeing them. He is forced in many instances to watch such a programme or to turn off his television set if he does not like the other three options. I remember that there was a great furore last year over one of the programmes that was shown on Channel 4. It caused Mrs. Whitehouse and her colleagues great concern. She is concerned about the majority of television viewers being forced to watch programmes that they do not want and I know that hon. Members are concerned about the broadcasting of slushy programmes that people may not want to watch. Twelve channels would give viewers many choices. If people do not watch a programme, the programme company will go out of business.
There is no chance that any Government will consider my remarks. 1 am flying a kite. 1 am challenging the very existence of any form of control on broadcasting. 1 believe in the freedom of the BBC to be as biased as it likes one way or the other. With a multiplicity of choice, the viewer will sort out any bias. I do not want to see any controls on the BBC's output, from whatever source. I do not like the idea, apart from occasions on which matters of national security arise, of BBC governors controlling the BBC or the IBA controlling individual television companies. I do not like the idea of controls on television. At the end of the day, the biggest control on television is the viewer. The viewer can change channels and can always turn off. The viewer should decide for himself or herself what controls there will be on television, and the viewer can do that much better than Parliament or Government can.

Mr. Chris Smith: I cannot accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). He has a naive belief that the market mechanism will always operate in a virtuous fashion. That is nonsense. It is a point that will always divide all hon. Members.
I must declare an interest. I have a close connection with the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians and have been grateful for the discussions that I have had with it in preparation for the debate.
I have no objection to the Bill. The extension of the existing ITV franchises is quite sensible. The current eightyear franchise period may be too short in any case. I broadly welcome extending the period for a further three years. The crucial question is that, having said that the franchises are to be extended for three years, what is the

Government's purpose in doing so? The Home Secretary was clear, open and honest. He said, "We are doing so to keep open the options for change." The centre of the debate, quite clearly and quite rightly, is what those options for change will be.
Three potential dangers are on the horizon. At least two of them have been raised in the debate. The first danger is that when existing ITV franchises come up for re-tender in three years, they will go out to competitive tender, and competition will be the overriding criterion for deciding who gets them. That is the Peacock proposal. It was warmly endorsed in the debate on the Peacock report by a previous Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). He said that going for the highest bidder, with a number of safeguards—he did not specify exactly how the safeguards would work — was a sensible way of allocating future franchises. I cannot possibly agree with that. In many ways, going for the highest bidder will not only distort the tendering procedure and process but will almost inevitably lead to some of the worst bidders getting franchises.
The range of programming that will be available to viewers as a result of the successful competitor winning a tender is bound to be affected. The narrower range of programmes will diminish opportunities for the viewer. Broadcasting standards are likely to fall. Of course, in going for competition and competition alone, the cheaper, more popular options will be chosen. Of course, competitive tendering, as has been mentioned once or twice in the debate, will give a major financial advantage to multinational companies that have a much sharper edge than have smaller companies. The idea of multinational companies—for example, ones that might be headed by people such as Rupert Murdoch or Robert Maxwell—getting their hands on major television franchises for the ITV network fills me with considerable horror. Competitive tendering as the major motivating force in deciding who gets franchises in three years' time is the first danger. I hope that the Government will not go along that road, although I fear that their insane belief in the appropriateness of market competition may lead them in that direction. It would be to the detriment of public sector broadcasting.
The second danger is that of hiving off Channel 4. That was proposed by the Peacock report. It would involve Channel 4 selling its own advertising directly, rather than operating through the mechanism of the IBA. Two things would inevitably follow. First, there would be competition for advertising revenue between Channel 4 and ITV. One must question whether that is a sensible way of grabbing available revenue from the world of advertising. Secondly, there would be competition in programming. To compete effectively for advertising one will have to compete for programming and audience figures. That will mean, first, that Channel 4 will be pushed down market and will no longer be as innovative as it is at the moment, with such excellent results, and, secondly, that it will compete directly in the popular slots with the other main ITV channel. That will also be to the detriment of viewers. The inevitable result will be that the two independent channels will offer a poorer quality of choice for the viewer.
I hope that the Government will not hive off Channel 4. It has been one of the great success stories of British broadcasting in the past few years. I fear that if the


Government go ahead with the proposals that the Peacock committee put forward, it will be much to the detriment of that success.
The third issue that has not yet received a major airing in this debate, and which should do so, is that of access for independent producers. The Home Secretary made a lot of this issue in the debate on the Peacock report. The Peacock committee recommended a guaranteed 40 per cent. quota for independents. The Home Secretary stated that 25 per cent. might he a sensible idea. No quota should be established. I do not believe in setting rigid quotas of that kind. There is nothing necessarily virtuous about having more independent television productions, just as there is nothing necessarily detrimental about having more independent television productions.

Mrs. Dunwoody: When the British film industry had no quota. it was completely drowned by its larger American cousin.

Mr. Smith: I shall refer to that point in a moment. In some ways, the allocation of a specific quota for independents may lead to the problem that we fear—that is, of multinational penetration of independent and public sector broadcasting networks. I shall turn to that point in a moment. The question ought not to be, what proportion of time is taken by independent producers and what proportion of time is taken by network producers? The question ought to be, what is the range and quality of programming from either stable that is available on the channels that are open to viewers?
A number of points ought to be made. First, the existing network channels arc very successful in gaining sales on the international market. That is one of the arguments that has been advanced for a greater amount of independent home market production to give the independents an edge in obtaining international sales. The existing networks are very successful in gaining international sales. They are also quite successful in providing material for Channel 4.
Secondly, there is a danger in guaranteeing quotas for independents. I make this point in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe.

Mrs. Dunwoody: And Nantwich.

Mr. Smith: Yes, and Nantwich. The danger is that it will not necessarily be the small companies that will benefit from a quota that is established for independents. It will be the large companies, and very often the multinationals, that will be able to take advantage of any established quota for independents. Already there are a number of media conglomerates that are active in European satellite, and I fear that any guarantee of a quota for independents may give an advantage to predators of that kind.
The third point that has to he made is that there is a large amount to be said for the maintenance of a permanently employed studio base as the foundation for all network productions. There is no necessarily innate British broadcasting genius. The reason that our broadcasting is so successful is that we have built up experience over a long period and that skills and facilities are available in both the BBC and ITV to make very good quality products. The danger of removing a major slice of the available network time from the networks is that the skills, experience and facilities that have been built up over the years will be damaged. I should hate that to happen.
I do not quarrel with more independent products being shown on television, but I want the permanently employed studio base, which has proved to be so successful in both the BBC and ITV, to be preserved so that that quality of product can be retained. We have only to consider what has happened in the film industry. Effectively, only one film studio that is producing films on a permanent basis is left in Britain. Its future is now under threat. I should hate the same diminution of facilities, skills and experience to happen in television as has happened in the film industry during the last couple of decades. I suspect that this argument will continue for some time.
I understand that the ACTT has asked to see the Minister to discuss the matter and that, although it has been suggested that there should be discussions at Civil Service level, the Minister and the Secretary of State have not said that they are prepared to talk to the major unions in the television industry about the independents and about access for the independents. I hope that the Minister of State will be prepared to see a delegation from a number of interested hon. Members and one or two interested Members of the other place, together with representatives of the trade unions in the broadcasting industry, for talks about this issue. It is important for the future of broadcasting and for what should happen about the Peacock recommendations that those talks should take place.
We have to welcome good products from, and the participation of, the independent sector. We must not be wedded to the acceptance of over-protective working practices, but I believe that there must be stability for the employees in the industry, the maintenance of good production facilities for the networks and, above all, width range and quality of programming—not automatic acceptance that rigid application of a quota system will lead to a better quality of programming or product.
Therefore, I give the Bill a somewhat half-hearted welcome. It is a very small Bill that does not do very much. However, it provides a breathing space, which is w hat the Government wanted it to do. The crucial question is what the Government will do with that breathing space and what consideration they will give to the future of broadcasting that will benefit the viewers, the range of programmes and the quality of the product. Those are the key questions. There must not simply be an acceptance of competition or acceptance of the view that independent is better than network, or that Peacock was right in everything or wrong in everything. We must consider the range of programmes and products that are available to all viewers in this country.
I fear that the Government are ducking out of asking the real questions about broadcasting and about the range of programmes that are available and that instead they will accept some of the ideological implications of Peacock. That will not be best either for broadcasting or For the people of this country.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), I am concerned about the position of the smaller companies and the Minister of State will not be surprised if, as a Scot, I ask him a question about the Government's assessment of the position, first, of Border Television and, secondly, of Grampian Television. In my experience, both of these small companies have produced excellent


programmes. They are well thought of in the area that they serve—Grampian in the Highlands, and Border both in Cumbria and in southern Scotland.
Secondly, like the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), I hope that every help will be given to the interests of the independent television producers. Like the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, many of us are concerned about the centralisation of television production. Far too much of it is located in this city. Many excellent television programmes are produced in Birmingham. [Interruption.] I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) grunting approval on the Opposition Front Bench. Indeed, many excellent programmes are produced at all points north. However, small companies are vulnerable and deserve to be encouraged.
I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich—not forgetting Nantwich — (Mrs. Dunwoody) that Channel 4 should be allowed to flourish, and I support her plea that about 25 per cent. of programmes should be given over to the independent producers. Those who have had dealings with independent producers feel that they do some admirable work and that they should be encouraged. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich knows a great deal about the industry. I share her fears of what Mr. Ted Turner of Atlanta may do in this country. DBS is a major development. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich that we are not discussing a trivial matter. Relations between Ministers and broadcasting authorities are delicate.
I tabled today's written question 212 in which I asked
the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about the date on which the Metropolitan police first contacted Strathclyde police about the proposed search of BBC premises in Glasgow.
The Home Secretary replied:
I understand that the Metropolitan police first contacted Strathclyde police on this matter on 29 January.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that this Bill does not concern the BBC. Incidental references are in order, but the hon. Gentleman is not in order to go in detail into the affairs of the BBC.

Mr. Dalyell: Every hon. Member who has spoken referred at some length to the BBC and to DBS.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. A number of rulings have been given from the Chair about the restrictions on the debate. Incidental references are in order, but there is nothing about the BBC in the Bill. Therefore, detailed remarks would be out of order.

Mr. Dalyell: Suppose the DBS got DBS contracts as it is entitled to do. If hon. Members refer back to section 19(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1981, they will see that, on the whole, I am in order.
I want to save the time of the House. I want to ask the Minister whether we are to believe that the Metropolitan police never saw—

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): Order.

Mr. Dalyell: It is no good the Minister getting angry when he is asked questions. I am asking him a simple question about the Home Secretary's reply to my written question today. Are we to believe that the Metropolitan police never saw fit to ask any Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already given a ruling to the hon. Gentleman. He is a good House of Commons man. He knows what is in order and what is not. I know, too, that he invariably respects the rulings of the Chair. I ask the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his remarks are in order.

Mr. Dalyell: You say rightly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am a good House of Commons man. I am certainly a good House of Commons man in that I believe that the House should be told the truth in answer to awkward questions. It is regrettable when Ministers take refuge in all sorts of devices and do not answer perfectly civil questions. I tabled a written question. I addressed it to the Home Office and the answer came back—

Mr. Francis Maude: That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: If there is any argument about it, the Minister could easily get me to move on to the rest of my speech if he would just say when Ministers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist on that course. He knows that a reference of that sort is quite out of order. It is very unfair to the House and the rest of the business of the House that he should attempt to introduce matters which have nothing to do with the debate. I ask the hon. Gentleman again to ensure that his remarks are in order and are relevant to the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: Considering how other people have been allowed to wander during the debate, and I am asking a delicate question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman appears to be disputing my ruling. There have already been a number of rulings. All other hon. Members who have spoken have responded if the Chair has told them that they are going too wide and have brought their remarks within order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do the same.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the BBC or is it not involved in DBS? I believe that it is.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am open to correction, but I understand that it is the intention of the BBC to be involved in DBS. It was in the consortia and has specific views about the extension. It is obvious that that matter comes within the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty is the uncharacteristic anger of the Minister of State, Home Office. I know from his petulance that he does not want to answer on a particular matter. Normally, he is the most obliging of Ministers. If he wished to answer the question that I have just put, he would do so very quickly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Minister were to attempt to answer that question, I should immediately rule him out of order. I would not allow him to do so.

Mr. Dalyell: I must say that you are being uncharacteristically harsh, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to cast aspersions on other hon. Members. The Bill


is definitely about the delicate relations between the broadcasting authorities, on the one hand, and the sponsoring Department, the Home Office, on the other. You nod to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask a specific question about the meaning of the answer that was given to my question 212. Does it mean that Home Office Ministers allow the Metropolitan police, on matters of DBS or general matters, to go into the BBC without any consultation?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall attempt to keep in order. In attempting to be helpful I was asking myself a question sotto voce. What would happen if the Zircon film was beamed to Britain by satellite from France and I picked it up on that little thing that I shall buy to put on the roof of my house to pick up the programmes? That is a legitimate question to ask and is relevant to the much more important question that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) always was a friend in need. If the former Home Secretary can ask that question, cannot we extend the good will? Perhaps the Minister will answer the question that I put to him. [Interruption.] It is all right for the Government Whip. It is all right if hon. Members make gentle speeches in the House, but if they ask awkward, factual questions the whole weight of procedure is brought down on top of them. I am asking a simple factual question: when were Ministers told by the Metropolitan police that they were going into the BBC? I would have been shocked—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman three times now that detailed references to the BBC are not in order in this debate. I hope that he will respond to the rulings that I have given. If he does not, I shall have no alternative but to order him to resume his seat.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the BBC involved in DBS contracts? Since Queen Margaret drive is the BBC's second largest office, it is not exactly a trivial matter when the Metropolitan police are ordered in. I simply ask, in innocence, when were Ministers told of that? If they were not told on 29 January, the Metropolitan police were not doing their job. My experience of senior police officers is that they do their job and on a matter like this—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in making remarks which are clearly out of order and which I have already ruled to be out of order. That is very unfair to the House and to the debate. I must again ask the hon. Member to bring his remarks in order or I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not like to transgress the rules of the House and I do not want to put you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in an embarrassing position. Before resuming my seat, I merely note that there has been a great reluctance by Home Office Ministers to answer a question that affects the delicate relationship between the broadcasting authorities and the police. I do not want to be offensive to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I note that the Minister has had ample opportunity to get to the Dispatch Box —[HON. MEMBERS: "He would have been out of order".] If there had been any good will of the nature that we

should expect, in candour with each other, that answer would have been forthcoming. I can only suspect the worst.

Mr. Robin Corbett: This has been a quiet, though interesting, debate. The matters raised by a superficially minor Bill are extremely important and the ripples that the Bill will cause will spread wide.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned the access of independent producers. He came down against a rigid quota and I notice that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) did not mention that subject, even though the alliance has been flying trailers all day about how it will do a wonderful job for independent producers during the Committee stage of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the persistent Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was right to mention the position of the smaller companies. He mentioned Border and Grampian, but there are others and I hope that the Minister and all other hon. Members will agree that the regional flavour of the productions of some small companies makes them successful and popular in their areas. Regional flavour cannot be sprinkled like salt and pepper on to programmes made overwhelmingly in London and the south-east.
I hope that I shall not add to any of the difficulties of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) if 1 say that he again treated the House to a delightful and perceptive speech. If we dealt with our debates in a different way, there would be universal agreement that the hon. Gentleman was the man of the match. The Minister of State will have noticed that he and I have performed our usual trick of emptying the House.
The Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to the great risks of DBS, which are well demonstrated by Mr. Richard Branson who is part of a successful DBS consortium and has recently taken up hot air ballooning. Last week, in pursuit of that new interest, he managed, instead of going up, to land on a factory roof. I hope that that was not part of a training programme in a bid to ride to glory on his DBS satellite.
We all know that the size and shape of broadcasting will change in an exciting and dramatic way over the next few years. The Bill makes little or no contribution to that process and in many senses will simply delay decisions that need to be taken. Keeping the options open can also be code for, "We don't know what to do." The Bill is the minimum that the Government can get away with while they await a change of Government at the election.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, we shall consult the trade unions, the IBA and others with an interest about changes in the system of allocation of ITV franchises. One possible change would be to stagger the period for which the franchises run. They do not all have to run for exactly the same period from the same starting point. Indeed, there are strong arguments For looking at a system that would stagger the timings of franchises. The present system puts an enormous burden on those within the industry who wish to make bids and on the IBA which has to consider them.
There is also merit in the idea of regular reviews of the operation of a franchise, built in over whatever period the


franchises are to run. The reviews would be known in advance and would require the company to account, against the terms on which the franchise was awarded, for its performance. I agree with the ACTT that the performance reviews should include consultation with the broadcasting unions which should have access to the results of those reviews. The unions should also be given adequate notice when a franchise is to be reallocated.
Thought also needs to be given to the continuity of employment of existing employees when a contract changes hands. Currently, that generally happens through the commitments won in collective bargaining, but I believe that it would be better to have it underpinned as a right.
When a bid is being put together it is all too easy for the bidders to pledge what they think will be attractive to the IBA in terms of, for example, more news and current affairs, but for those pledges to slip in a bid for ratings, and for news programmes to be replaced by more soaps and game shows. We have seen that demonstrated in commercial television. Companies have gone back to the IBA after promising a minimum amount of regional news coverage. They say that advertising revenue is down, so they cannot sustain their commitment and the three minute news programme every hour is chopped down to two minutes.
I believe that rolling reviews would be a better insurance against a slide into lower quality programming which is topped up only when the end of the franchise period approaches so that the company can make itself look better.
We have a commitment to a system that leads to better accountability by those who give the contracts and those who receive them. That is only proper in a democratic society and I suspect that there is general agreement in the House on that proposition.
It has been suggested that a system of financial penalties for serious breaches of a contract might assist the maintenance of programme standards. I am not sure that that is the best route, but it would have the attraction of raiding extra profits gained from a departure from the terms on which a franchise was given and a lowering of programme standards or programme cover. Whichever system is favoured, a better attempt must be made to enforce the franchise terms, to guard against any increase in cheap American imports and to try to give better scope within expanding broadcasting hours to independent producers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that rigid quotas may not be the best answer, but within the estimated 4 per cent. per annum rise in the number of broadcasting hours—there is no reason to assume that that number will decrease; indeed, it may grow—there should be scope for a larger slice for independent productions. That could also help to counter the risk—to put it at its lowest—of the major companies, whether the BBC or ITV companies, putting too much cash into new and expensive production facilities rather than into programme making.
I was talking only last night to a leading producer who has worked for the BBC and ITV. He was complaining about a shortage of studio capacity and when I quizzed him he admitted that he was talking about a shortage in London. I told him that there are acres of studio capacity in Nottingham, where half of the Central TV operation is

centred. Central originates many of its programmes in Birmingham and Nottingham and makes a reasonable job of it. That shows that programmes can be made outside London, and Central has plans to do more in that line.
I want to make it clear that an incoming Labour Government will not, under any circumstances, accept the auctioning of franchises. We oppose this totally free market approach to broadcasting, which could only threaten the high standards set through public service broadcasting by the BBC, and which others seek to meet. It is no exaggeration to say that the standards, quality, range, width and depth of BBC programming sets a general standard to which the independent commercial sector tries to aspire. Auctions — apart from anything else that they would do—would almost certainly divert cash that would otherwise be spent on programming.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair on the independent companies. I would argue, as many of his hon. Friends have argued, that the independent companies—particularly Channel 4—have been in the business of innovative change.

Mr. Corbett: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about Channel 4, which has been praised from both sides of the House this afternoon, quite properly. The example that it has set by the imaginative way in which it has gone into the areas of programming neglected by the giants is first class.
Regrettably, I need to re-emphasise the fact that unless we hold on to the public service broadcasting sector—in which we want to see exciting developments — programming standards in the commercial sector will be put into question.
The Labour party believes that the auction system would be run under the banner of. "Never mind the quality, feel the width of the bank roll." That is no way to treat the companies involved, the people working in them and, above all, those who are invited to watch the programmes. That is an improper way to protect and promote programme quality. It would have the reverse effect. The Labour party believes that an all cash-led system, such as in sections of the press, would do nothing other than lower programme standards and narrow choice through limiting the variety and range of the programmes in a bid to chase the ratings, on which the advertising revenue critically depends.
As the House knows, we are not seeking to divide on the Bill. I am happy to tell the Minister of State that we do not intend, should the Bill get its Second Reading, as seems likely, to delay its further progress.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has spoken with his customary clarity and warmth. I am glad to have an opportunity once again of sharing a parliamentary high spot with him.
I make no apologies for the fact that this is a modest Bill. It is not a substitute for the more far-reaching changes in broadcasting that many hon. Members want to see; it rather prepares the ground to allow that change to be fully and properly discussed in the House and elsewhere. The Bill allows two changes to be made that we believe are beneficial to the development of broadcasting in Britain,


and that will allow us to decide. at a sensible pace, whether some more fundamental changes should be made to the independent television system.
All the hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon appreciate that we have reached an important stage in the development of broadcasting services. New technology will not be denied. It will happen and is already happening, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) observed, with the increasing presence on roofs in Britain of satellite dishes. A consequence of the new technology will be to increase the number of channels available to the viewer, and to make possible other ways of paying for what we watch. All of those considerations are controversial; all of them pose questions that were properly addressed in the debate about standards.
A great deal has rightly been said about the maintenence of the public broadcasting service tradition in Britain. A challenging speech was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who properly made it clear that the business of regulating international satellite delivery of programmes is not as easy as dealing with the business of terrestrial programmes that emanate from, and are received by, people who are within our jurisdiction.
The Peacock committee has deliberated and its deliberations are under consideration by the Government. We have had a debate in the House on its report. Other observations were made about the Peacock report. Peacock, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear, has not determined any of the issues. It has fixed in people's minds the need to debate these areas. It has stimulated discussion and responses, even from those who disagree fundamentally with one or two of the Peacock recommendations. We shall return to the report in due course.
The IBA has offered for consideration proposals for changes in the ITV contract system. As yet, we have not made up our minds on these issues, but we do not want to close the opportunity for change. That opportunity would be closed if the IBA were to have to advertise the new contracts now and then award those contracts for a maximum period of eight years from 1 January 1990.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister give some view of the Government's thinking on the great paradox of the situation in which the experience of the increasing multiplicity of channels, when they are under commercial control, has meant a diminution of choice? The greater the number of channels, the less the choice has been. That has been true of American and Italian broadcasting. How does the Minister propose to deal with this point

Mr. Mellor: The question whether there is a wide choice such as there is in the United States will inevitably be a matter for individual value judgment. Our aim is to ensure that viewers are given the opportunity of a width in choice but that there is not a diminution of standards by trying to ensure that the sensible regulations that we have long experienced—the charter of the BBC, the Broadcasting Acts, the cable Acts—are extended to cover the other activities that are under our control. Indeed, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and I discussed that at a somewhat later hour some weeks ago. We tried to move towards sensible European regulation of European satellite broadcasts via the mechanism of a Council of Europe convention rather than a European

Community directive, which is not appropriate. In that way, choice and quality can be maintained. Precisely how these things turn out will depend a great deal not on what I or the hon. Member for Paisley, South think, but on what the consumer thinks. None of us wants to be too dogmatic about that.
It would be quite wrong, with all these proposals for change and at this point in technological development, for us to permit the contractuail period to expire and for the advertising process to begin now. That would, in effect, close the option of making any changes in the way in which independent television contracts are awarded, or the way in which the independent television system operates for another decade. That is why this is a modest Bill, and I make no apologies for its modesty. It makes no substantive changes to the independent television system, because those matters remain under consideration. I can assure the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that when we have reached further conclusions and have had a chance to reflect on all that has been said the House will have every opportunity of further debate on these important matters.
All the Bill seeks to do is, first, to improve the prospects of a British DBS service in the 1990s and, secondly, to provide the opportunity of earlier changes in the ITV contract services by, in effect, providing for a three-year extension to the existing contracts. Substantive changes to the contract arrangements, if they are put forward, or any substantive changes to other features of the broadcasting structure will require further legislation. That is a further reason why Parliament will have a full opportunity to consider in detail whatever proposals for change may in due course emerge.

Mr. Dalyell: What are the Government's reflections on the position of the two small Scottish companies, Border and Grampian?

Mr. Mellor: I was going to come to that point, but I do not mind answering it now, because it is important and a number of hon. Members have referred to it.
The way in which contracts are allocated on a regional basis is entirely a matter for the IBA, and nothing that we are proposing in the Bill or otherwise makes any alteration to that. We have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, 15 regional companies, and that will continue for as long as the IBA wishes it to do so. It is in the driving seat on these issues. That is part of the arm's length regulation in these matters that we have always thought proper, so that the Government are not too concerned on the sensitive issue as to where the franchises should be and who should get them. That is a bipartisan policy from which we should move away at out peril and I am glad to see the assent of the hon. Gentleman.
The IBA, in making its decision as it would have to in due course about the future of various companies and the areas of various franchises, will make its determination on the basis of public approval or otherwise of the way in which individual companies have done their jobs and franchises are worked out. I have no doubt that the approbation of hon. Members for their regional companies will be taken into account.
I welcome the speech made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, which added substance to the debate. He asked about the reviews of the performance of ITV companies undertaken by the IBA which, as he


properly said, is the background to its proposals for a more formalised way of operating in the future. The IBA carried out a mid-term review of all ITV contracts and the results were published in its annual report for 1985–86. For each ITV company the IBA considered what improvements in programme performance were necessary or desirable. These were internal administrative reviews and results were not bound in any formal or legal way to whether the franchise would be continued to certain companies in future contract rounds. However, any ITV company waiting to reapply for a contract under the procedures now in force would want to take the IBA's views seriously, and we would all want that to be the case.
These reviews are different from the Peacock committee's proposal for a rolling review. Its recommendation No. 11 envisaged a formal annual review of each contractor's performance, with termination of contract to be a sanction in the event of a company's failure to meet its obligation. Some part of that thinking is reflected, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South knows, in the IBA's recent proposals for a new approach, one of the propositions on the table that we are considering when looking at the future of the ITV system.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether the IBA's approval would be needed for Border Television to be taken over. The answer is yes, because the Broadcasting Act 1981 provides that the assignment of programme contracts or a change in the ownership or control of an ITV company requires the IBA's consent. However, if it is not a full takeover but just the absorption of one contract area into another, this is again a matter for the IBA when drawing up or advertising new contracts. Once again, the ball lies in its court.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the provision of satellite dishes. The present range of satellite dishes generally requires planning consent, but also a licence obtainable from the Department of Trade and Industry at a cost of £10. These are to receive low-powered satellite broadcasts from some of the companies presently operating, most of which operate through cable systems. The high-powered satellites, the so-called big birds, which are what DBS is all about, will, paradoxically, require smaller dishes and these can freely be put on roofs, without the need for permission. However, we do not yet know how far DBS will go straight to the household or how far it will go to cable heads and so through cable systems. Again, none of us would want to be dogmatic or assertive about these matters. We want to see the way in which these arrangements develop.
I always listen to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) with interest and respect. She raised an important point about the supervision of satellite services, and I can give her some of the answers that she wants. I make it clear that DBS will be regulated by the IBA, just as terrestrial services are.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman continually refers to DBS in relation to the IBA. Do the Government think that there will be no public service broadcasting by DBS?

Mr. Mellor: The IBA is public service broadcasting. This touches on a key point. I hope that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich will forgive me if I deviate from answering her points, but this is at the heart of the debate.
We can all be proud that we have proved that public service broadcasting can exist in both the private and the public sector. It was interesting to be able to make that point with great confidence in Vienna, to the astonishment of a number of those gathered around the table. Many of those countries are still teetering on the brink of deciding whether to bring any commercial input into their television services and are troubled about advertising. We have proved over 30 years that one can switch on BBC and ITV knowing that one is receiving a good variety of programmes but within a sensible framework imposed by a public service broadcasting concept. Our aim is to ensure as far as possible that a similar framework continues to exist with satellite broadcasting.

Mr. Buchan: Including non-commercial?

Mr. Mellor: The DBS could be non-commercial. The reason why it is not non-commercial has nothing to do with the Government. The hon. Gentleman will remember—this is relevant to the tussle that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had with the Chair earlier—that originally the idea was that the BBC should take on DBS. At one point it was exclusively entrusted to the BBC. However, it then found that it could not afford to take the financial risk. The up-front risk is major, which is why one of the key elements of the Bill is to extend the franchise period by three years to make it a more attractive commercial proposition.
The BBC said at first that it did not want to continue with the exclusive DBS contract and then failed to enter into partnership. The IBA then picked up the baton, and I am sure that we are delighted that British Satellite Broadcasting has provisionally been awarded a contract. It includes a range of experienced United Kingdom-based broadcasters. I hope that, following the success of some other United Kingdom-based low-powered satellite programmers such as Sky Channel or the Superchannel, we may also look forward to having, by 1990, a high-powered DBS service based in Britain.

Mr. Buchan: rose——

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Mellor: I am enjoying my dialogue with the hon. Member for Paisley, South, so I shall give way to him first, and I shall give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow later.

Mr. Buchan: Is it the Government's intention within the next year, if they are in power—I do not believe they will be—to allow non-commercial satellite DBS as well as independent commercial television?

Mr. Mellor: We have no objections. We made that clear when the BBC was initially asked to participate. Our approach is straight forward. We do not wish to lay down who should participate—provided the company satisfies reasonable criteria — but rather to try to ensure that anyone who has a commercially viable business proposition can participate provided he accepts the sensible broadcasting regulations that we have always had.

Mr. Buchan: How does that tie up with the proposal that the BBC revenue should be indexed? How will the BBC afford to get into DBS if the Government are blocking its chance for further financial resources?

Mr. Mellor: Five channels are potentially available and three have been allocated to the IBA. The allocation of the


other two channels must depend on resources. It has never been our intention to subsidise DBS. Indeed, it is clear from Europe that those countries that have tried to do that have failed. We are not raising obstacles to prevent anyone, whether in the private or public sector, from becoming involved in this project.
On the one hand, the hon. Member for Paisley, South has said that I am helpful but, on the other, he is snickering at the answers he has received. The IBA was the only organisation able to take on this project. It has awarded the contracts for three channels and there are another two available. Whether those two channels will develop will turn on commercial factors over which the Government neither have control nor should attempt to exercise control.

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I will give the hon. Gentleman one more bite at the cherry.

Mr. Buchan: The Minister said that two channels were available, subject to commercial criteria. Do the Government intend to take steps to ensure that there will be public service, non-commercial financed broadcasting by satellite? In other words, will the Government release sufficient resources? Will they scrap the idea of indexing present BBC expenditure? If the Government are not prepared to do that, it is no use saying that there are two channels available to the BBC as the resources will not be available to it to take advantage of them.

Mr. Mellor: We do not intend to subsidise the channels. There was no obstacle to prevent the BBC involvement earlier on and, similarly, there is no reason why the BBC should not be involved at a later stage.
It has always been envisaged that DBS should be financed in a way that reflects the popularity of the programmes and not by virtue of a state handout. That would be inappropriate.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mellor: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave the subject of the BBC, and as we are all brimming with good will, will the Home Secretary whisper to his hon. Friend the Minister of State whether, on 29 January, the Metropolitan police told the right hon. Gentleman what they intended to do?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): That would be out of order. I am sure that the Minister will not comment.

Mr. Mellor: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman keeps pursuing the matter. If he tables a written question—he needs no lesson about that subject from me—he will get his answer. If I were to answer him now, I would be out of order and it would be a distortion of a Broadcasting Bill on quite different matters. If I were pressed for an answer, it would mean that whenever a Home Office Minister was at the Dispatch Box he would be subjected to cross-examination on that point. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question in the proper form, he will get an answer. Now is not the time for that answer.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich discussed the regulation of DBS. At the moment, that regulation turns on individual countries regulating the direct broadcasting that emanates from their jurisdiction. There is some basis for control at the receiving end. We have

already discovered that most satellite systems must be received via a cable distribution system and therefore the distribution by cable is controlled under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. The standards of requirement are contained in that Act. In effect, a cable operator has legal responsibility for anything that is disseminated.
I repeat that we do not regard that as entirely satisfactory. We believe that some sort of convention, such as that which we are trying to introduce in the Council of Europe, would be useful. Unlike those in Brussels, we are trying to impose not the heavy hand but the light hand of regulation to mirror the arrangements that already exist in the Cable and Broadcasting Act and the charter of the BBC. I am sure that that is a sensible basis on which to proceed.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that we had adopted a piecemeal approach to this matter. That is not so. Throughout our period of office we have taken a steady, sensible, practical view of the potential within the United Kingdom both to expand broadcasting within our society and to make use of the outstanding international reputation of British broadcasting. That expansion would give us the opportunity to win audiences for British programming overseas with the consequential possibilities for business expansion and jobs. There are a number of notable feathers in our cap.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Gorton said that Channel 4 was the most brilliantly successful channel in the world. I am aware that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South claims some part in the paternity of that channel—whether the right hon. Gentleman and my noble Friend the Leader of the House of Lords will have to have blood tests to decide this question remains to be seen. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the final version and the manner in which the project was carried through was due in large part to my noble Friend.
Some Opposition Members are sceptical about the manner in which the Government approach such matters. It is paradoxical that they should commend Channel 4 — a Government creation — and then express such concern that the Government are interested only in a form of cheap-jack commercialism with regard to future broadcasting.
We are as committed as any Opposition Member to the concept of public service broadcasting. I believe that we approach the task of widening consumer choice with a more realistic appreciation of the potential market. Many of the objections to Peacock and the other arrangements we have been proposing and are likely to propose have been raised on many occasions in the past. Precisely the same objections were raised, when we proposed the ITV system, as happened when we proposed commercial radio. We cannot detect any reason why commercial success must be equated with a lowering of standards. On the contrary, many of our most outstanding businesses and broadcasting companies have proved that commercial success and high standards run hand in hand.
Modest steps forward have been proposed in the Bill—and I am not knocking modest Bills of two clauses since I am discussing one with 128 clauses in Committee. The Bill makes it more likely that direct broadcasting by satellite will be successful. It extends the period by three years to 15 years and give us a period when, quietly and steadily, we may continue to evaluate the future of the independent television system in the knowledge that we


have a few more years for that consideration. When the next full contract round comes forward we will be able to make changes that will take broadcasting through to the end of the century and will make use of all the knowledge and experience gleaned in the 30 years in which the ITV system has operated.
Whatever else the House may fall out about, I am glad that the House will not fall out about this Bill, and I warmly commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills.)

Orders of the Day — Motor Cycle Noise Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Motor Cycle Noise Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act.—[Mr. Peter Bottoniley.]

Mr. Robert Adley: In the two minutes before the debate is postponed, I should like to commend the money resolution to the House. It is a good money resolution in support of a good Bill. As the sponsor of this private Member's Bill, I thank the Ministers and the officials at the Department of Transport for the considerable time and effort they have expended in helping to draft the Bill.
There is already legislation that enables a prosecution to be brought against motor cyclists for having noisy exhaust systems. However, the purpose of the Bill and the money resolution is to deal with the matter at source so that noisy exhaust systems can be dealt with by one action, which clearly is more time effective and much more cost-efficient than taking dozens of individuals to court. That is the purpose of the money resolution. The Bill is supported by—

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — British Railways Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is one in a long series of general powers Bills that British Railways has brought forward over the years. It follows closely on the Third Reading of the Stansted Bill a fortnight ago. I hope that today will not prove quite so contentious.
Such Bills are designed to provide British Rail with powers to enable it to bring up to date the whole of its permanent way and other operations. I recognise that the feature of such Bills is often the closure of level crossings and other facilities, but it is worth remembering the positive side to all that is included in such Bills.
Investment in British Rail in the past three years has been £1,400 million and another £2,500 million is planned for the next five years. The House will be aware that recently orders for £95 million worth of new inter-city rolling stock for the east coast main line have been placed. Against the background of the closure of level crossings and the rest, I should like to remind the House that there are now plans to open five branch lines and 12 stations to add to the 56 stations and other facilities opened since 1982.
The Bill follows the normal procedures of past legislation and I do not intend to weary the House by dealing with non-contentious matters. Some of my hon. Friends, and hon. Members in other parts of the House, are anxious about some of the proposed plans so I shall deal with them in particular. If, with the permission of the House, I have the opportunity to speak again, I shall deal with other matters which might arise.
Part II of the Bill deals with proposed works. The first deals with the railway system in the Canterbury area. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in his place. I refer to work Nos. 2, 2A, 2B, and 3 at Whitehall road leading to Whitehall farm. It might be convenient for the House to consider clause 6 at the same time. The works are needed to connect The Chartham and Canterbury West lines and the Selling Canterbury East lines, thereby permitting through running from Chartham and Canterbury East and thence to Dover, avoiding the circuitous route via Minster. That proposal is the subject of a petition by Professor Pressnell, which I have no doubt will be considered in the proper way at the proper time. I mention that proposal because there is a fear that. by virtue of clause 6, a plan exists undisclosed in the Bill to close Canterbury West station. I can give an assurance that that is definitely not so. The board has no plans for such a closure.
Work No. 4 concerns the deviation railway at Llantrisant, which will be of interest to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). This work is designed to help the Mid Glamorgan county council with its plan to construct a bypass at Talbot Green. British Rail's proposal will divert the railway, so enabling the land to be released for the road.
Work No. 7 is also the subject of a petition and has been a matter of concern to those living in the area. Petitions have been tabled by the Doncaster borough council and the Ramblers Association. The work relates to the level crossings at Dormer Green and Noblethorpe. They are

public level crossings located close to each other, separated by about 450 yards. They are conventional gated crossings controlled by a gatekeeper who lives in a house adjacent to Noblethorpe crossing. The hoard believes that there is no justification for the retention of the gatekeeper. Since the roads, which are described as through routes, can be used only by farm traffic the board wishes to close the Dormer Green crossing and to divert traffic over the Noblethorpe crossing by means of a road to be built, at the board's expense, across land owned by the owner of Thorpe Grange farm, the person most directly concerned.
The future road will be suitable for vehicular traffic but will have private status. I draw attention to subsection (5) of clause 11 which states:
Any person who suffers loss by the extinguishment under this section of such private rights of way, if any, as may exist over Dormer Green and Noblethorpe crossings shall be entitled to be paid by the Board compensation, to be determined in case of dispute by the tribunal.
There is a remedy in that subsection for anyone who is affected.
Clause 25 is of great interest to my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr.Cash) and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). It relates to the closure of Whitebridge lane, Stone and involves the closure of a public level crossing to vehicular traffic. Pedestrian rights are to be retained. The board's plan is to withdraw the crossing keepers. The clause authorises the board to stop up Whitebridge lane. Wicket gates and stiles will be provided to provide a crossing for pedestrian use.
Staffordshire county council has petitioned against the board's proposal because it believes that it will create problems for heavy vehicles. It is important to remember that alternative routes will be available and that the Staffordshire police state that Whitebridge lane between the level crossing and Mount road is unsuitable for exceptional loads. The British Waterways Board contends that the bridge over the Trent and Mersey canal is capable of carrying any vehicle which complies with the construction and use regulations. I hope that those assurances will meet the point.
Part III of the Bill deals with works at Blyth and the termination of a short railway, following the Coal Board's decision after the long miners' strike not to use the railways for transportation. This provision enables the board and British Rail to come to agreement as a result of that decision.
Part IV of the Bill deals with the purchase of land and part V with the incorporation of works and lands provisions. Part VI deals with protective provisions under the British Rail Acts 1981 and 1984, both of which I guided through the House. Part VII deals with miscellaneous provisions and part VIII with general provisions, including repeal and arbitration procedures.
I draw attention to the two schedules to the Bill. Schedule I deals with the acquisition of land. Clause 36 gives powers to take land to enlarge the electrical substation at Branksome near Poole. That is of great interest to my constituents and to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). They know how well that railway system is improving, and the extra electrification to Weymouth should make a great difference to the journeys of our constituents.
Schedule 2 deals with enactments that are to be repealed by the Bill. This is not a contentious measure. As I say, it is a housekeeping measure, as are most of the


British Rail Bills. Following my short explanation, I hope that the House will feel able to give the Bill a Second Reading. If I am given permission to speak again, I shall try to deal with any specific matters raised by hon. Members.

Mr. John Heddle: I should like to make three constituency points, two of them on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown). He represents the second most beautiful seat in Britain, but because of his much-deserved appointment to the Whips Office a few months ago he is unable to put to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) these two points. In chronological order they appear in clause 12 and deal with the stopping up of two level crossings just by the A38 at Alrewas.
I do not know that part of Staffordshire quite as well as does my hon. Friend, but I know it almost as well because in a previous incarnation in the Parliament of 1979 to 1983 I represented the constituency of Lichfield and Tamworth. That included the village of Alrewas, which now forms the heart of my hon. Friend's Staffordshire, South-East constituency. The level crossings to be stopped up are at Fine lane and at Roddige lane.
I should like my hon. Friend to consider my remarks about an equally important matter. Perhaps I should say a matter of great commercial importance and in saying that I am expressing a partial prejudice, but I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me for that. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East wish to make representations on behalf of Staffordshire county council. It has lobbied vigorously and vociferously, and I hope that it will continue to lobby persuasively to persuade British Rail and its professional advisers—notwithstanding the advice that they have received from the Staffordshire police, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the British Waterways Board and any other authority that they may wish to call to support their case—to consider the views of the democratically elected representatives of the people who use and derive benefit from the land to which these level crossings give access.
I direct the attention of the House to clause 25. That clause gives power to close the level crossing in Whitebridge lane in Stone in my constituency. The proposed closure of this level crossing causes great worry not only to the county council, but to many of my constituents in Stone and to one section of my constituents with which I shall deal in a moment. The level crossing is one of only two means of access to the Whitebridge lane industrial estate and to an adjoining factory estate on the opposite side of the road.
The other access to the industrial estate and to the factories is from the A51 along Whitebridge lane over an inadequate and steep hump-backed bridge, about which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest spoke. That bridge is over the Trent and the Mersey canal. It is just not possible for certain long wheel base vehicles to pass over the hump because they bottom upon it. The hump is too steep. Last summer the level crossing was temporarily closed, and Staffordshire county council received complaints about the need to double handle loads. The

only access for such long vehicles is over the level crossing and if passed unamended the Bill would give British Rail permission to close that crossing.
The chief fire officer of Staffordshire county council is also worried about the possibility of closure of the level crossing because it would be difficult for his larger appliances to pass over the bridge.
It is estimated that between 65 and 70 per cent. of the industrial units on the Whitebridge industrial estate, an important part of the economy of Stone, are let. It is thought that if this level crossing is closed not only would it be difficult to let the remaining units, but the present occupiers might have to consider whether to relocate, because some of the occupants depend very much on deliveries by the types of vehicles about which I have spoken and they can only gain access over the bridge.
My next point is not party political: I do not need to underline that. As the House will appreciate, local employment opportunities are very much at stake. I ask my hon. Friend to give me an assurance on behalf of the promoters of the Bill that they will take that into account in any subsequent discussions that they may have with Staffordshire county council. The county council has considered the possibility of the construction of an alternative access to the industrial estate. That would be by means of a new bridge over the canal. The present estimated cost of the bridge and its associated roadworks is £300,000.
I take more than a passing interest in local government finance in general and in the finance of Staffordshire county council in particular. I do not think that the county council could support the funding of this programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East and I both know that there are many village bypasses and other road improvement schemes in our constituencies and throughout the county that deserve greater priority.
I understand that discussions about this level crossing took place with British Rail as long ago as 1978 and that no firm agreement was reached. British Rail considered that the possibility of contributing towards the cost of a new bridge would be a possible way out, but nothing further has been heard from British Rail about that. What does British Rail seek to save by allowing this clause to remain in the Bill? I do not know. Perhaps my hon. Friend could find out and let me know between now and 2 March. I suspect that it may mean the saving of one part-time job of a level crossing keeper during the day, and one part-time job of a level crossing keeper during the night.
I ask my hon. Friend to pass to the promoters that much more is at stake and that it rests on the promoters' decision. It is the continued prosperity and profitability of the factories and the creation of jobs in the two factory estates about which I have spoken. I remind him that 65 to 70 per cent. of the factories are let. That means that 30 per cent. are not. If this level crossing is closed, the possibility of letting those factories will he remote and the viability of the factories that are let will become questionable. He will know that the promoters of the Bill intend to debate this matter further with Staffordshire county council on 2 March. I hope that the promoters will consider discussions with the occupiers of the industrial units on these estates, with Stone chamber of trade, the Staffordshire Development Association and other interested parties.
When the history of this Bill is written in the annals of British Rail, the stopping up of this level crossing and the


saving of these two part-time jobs will be seen not to have been worth the candle. I hope that the industrial, commercial and capitalist candle will continue to burn brightly for many years in Stone in my constituency.

Mr. David Crouch: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for having introduced the Bill. As he said, it is a sort of routine measure and a general purpose Bill for British Rail and it should do us no harm. The proposals in clauses 5 and 6, which concern my constituency, are improvements on two relatively old lines in the British Rail system, but to say that they would do no one any harm would be wrong. Certain of my constituents will be done considerable harm and that harm can be removed only by generous compensation.
Clauses 5 and 6 refer to work No. 2, work No. 3 and detailed works Nos. 2A and 2B. They will be considerable improvements. The British Railways Board has been very helpful. Its solicitor sent me advance notice of what was to happen, as I imagine he did to all other hon. Members affected by the proposed changes. The information has revealed an inadequacy in the line from London to the Kent coast—to Canterbury and beyond to Ramsgate and to Dover. In the past, the two separate lines—one from Victoria and Cannon Street to Dover and the other from Charing Cross through Ashford, through Canterbury West to Ramsgate and Sandwich — have crossed in Canterbury. That crossover is a disadvantage. It was probably a wrong piece of planning, but there it is. The proposed change will remove that crossover and produce a link between the lines so that, in future, it will be possible for a person travelling from Ashford to Canterbury West to join the other line and go through Canterbury East to Dover. That is a much better plan.
This plan will affect some of my constituents who own the farmland where the rail building is to take place. That work is quite small—between 1,000 and 1,500 yards of rail. My constituent, Mr. Todd, farms Whitehall farm, which is mentioned in the Bill. The effect of the Bill is to carve his farm in two, which makes the farm no longer viable. That is why generous compensation must be considered.
A similar problem arose 10 or 12 years ago with farms and farmers in my constituency when the Canterbury bypass was built. It cut through many farms, robbing them not only of land but of their viability. If a farm is cut in half, the two halves cannot be farmed together. Even if a bridge is built to help the farmer, farming is extremely difficult. Whitehall farm is a small farm and I do not think —nor does the farmer—that there would be a case for building a bridge there. I am sure that this problem will be solved. British Rail has much experience of it. The fact that British Rail wrote to me to inform me of the proposal helped me to advise Mr. Todd and his brother, who together farm Whitehall farm, on the steps that they should take.
A petition has been presented by Professor Pressnell from the university of Kent in Canterbury. My constituents, the farmers, did not succeed in submitting a petition to the House and I have advised them to consider petitioning the other place in due course. I have sought the advice of the solicitor's office of the British Railways Board to pass further information on to my constituents.
I am not complaining about the proposed rail change because it will be a considerable improvement. We do riot often hear of new railway lines being built. I know that I am talking about fewer than 1,500 yards of railway line, but that is a considerable improvement. I thank British Rail for its initiative in building a little more railway line and in improving the route to the Kent coast which will feature prominently in the next few years when the Channel tunnel is built. People will want to get to the tunnel entrance, and one of these lines will serve the tunnel directly. The infrastructure generally needs to be improved as well—an argument which is advanced all the time by people in Kent as one of the measures needed in the area.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest say that there was no question of Canterbury West station being closed. Canterbury is sometimes looked upon as being remarkable. Of course it is a remarkable place, but it is remarkable also in that it has two stations — Canterbury West and Canterbury East. They are extremely good and important stations. Canterbury West is a very distinguished, fine-looking and beautifully kept station. I always congratulate the station manager and the staff on the way that it is kept. Perhaps its appearance has influenced British Rail's decision to keep it going.
More important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) knows, Canterbury West played a famous part in the history of British railways and the railways of the world. The first passenger service in the world was on the line From Canterbury West to Whitstable. I know that because I happened to attend a service in Canterbury cathedral five years ago at which the Archbishop of Canterbury preached, and we recognised the great achievement of none other than Stephenson in having built the railway line to connect with ships sailing out of Whitstable harbour taking people to London.
Another reason why Canterbury West must remain open is that the original railway track laid down by Stephenson is in the station yard. That line has been preserved. Those industrial and archaeological reminders are important. That is not the only reason to keep the station open. The route to the coast served by Canterbury West is distinct and separate from the route served by Canterbury East.
I commend the Bill. It is an advantage to our infrastructure and our railway system. I hope that the British Railways Board will note what I have said. It must in turn take note of the concern expressed by Mr. Todd at Whitehall farm and ensure that he is properly compensated.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I hope that the House will forgive me if I intervene now because I hope to be helpful. I have not waited for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) to speak because I suspect that I shall speak after him arid I want to get the retaliation in first.
I am delighted to be involved in a railway debate. Each of us is here as a Member of Parliament, and our constituency system means that hon. Members can speak for particular level crossings or beautiful railway stations. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), a Government Whip, nodded wisely and enthusiastically when parts of his constituency were mentioned. Within the past fortnight, I have had the


opportunity to open a new railway bridge—the Well Hall railway bridge—which I hope will also go down in British Rail's history.
In no sense am I trying to wind up or answer the debate. The Government have considered the Bill's contents and there are no objections in principle to the powers sought by the British Railways Board. A few minor points will need to be raised by the Department of Transport and I have no reason to doubt that they will be cleared up satisfactorily.
As has been mentioned, there are four petitioners against the Bill who will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee, which will be in a position to give more detailed examination to the issues that are involved, and which will have the added advantage of access to expert evidence.
I recommend to the House that the Bill is given a Second Reading and that it is allowed to proceed in the usual way to detailed consideration in Committee. However, I should like to say that anyone who has not had the enjoyment of reading a Bill such as this might, with advantage, read clause 27(5), where they will notice that for the words
shut and fasten any gate
it is possible to substitute the words,
lower and lock any lifting barrier".
That shows that the House gives immense attention to
detail, as is absolutely right.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a brief speech. I hope that my hon. and neighbouring Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will allow me to say that British Rail owes him an immense debt of gratitude for his work. The House knows and recognises his eloquence and knowledge in presenting such Bills, and that should be put on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) treated us to a delightful nugget of parliamentary history. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) rightly raised an important matter of concern to his constituents.
I should like to pick out one or two points about the Bill in relation to my hon. Friend's remarks because they provide an interesting illustration of some of the matters about the railways that we take for granted in the House and in the country. Without wishing to cross swords with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire, I suspect that the railway line was there before the factories to which he referred. However, it is assumed that it must always be British Rail that must take the necessary steps to enable life to continue. That is one of the presumptions which we all make and which, of course, costs British Rail a large sum every year. When we consider the figures for British Rail's overall costs, we should never forget the assumptions that we make which cost them money as is illustrated in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury discussed the new Canterbury link, but which is very welcome albeit rather less dramatic than the new Windsor link in Manchester, which has already been approved by the House.
The Bill illustrates concern for individuals, but also the larger matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest touched. Quite properly, he referred to the number of new stations that are being opened. However, I suspect that most people would imagine that British Rail is busy closing stations, rather than opening them. In fact, the reverse is the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell) reminded me the other day of the comparatively large number of new stations that British Rail has opened since the Government were elected.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest discussed the electrification of the Weymouth to Bournemouth line, which, as he rightly said, is important to his constituents and to mine. Of course, that electrification is welcome, but it pales into insignificance when compared with the electrification of the east coast main line, which has been talked about for many years, but which is coming to fruition only now, under this Government.
Therefore, the Bill is an interesting illustration of the way in which, with the railways, the facts belie the story of neglect that is often laid at the door of the present Government and their attitude to the railways.

Mr. Peter Snape: I hesitate to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's habitually eloquent opening remarks. However, I am not sure where his remarks are leading us in our debate on the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that all those improvements to which he has referred have been financed entirely out of British Rail's own resources by the selling-off of land and property, and that not a penny piece for those improvements has come from the Department of Transport or the Government?

Mr. Adley: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has decided to inject a partisan point into the debate. British Rail's finances are in a rather better state than many people might be led to believe. One of the reasons for that could be the support that BR receives from the Government. I am not suggesting, nor is he, that we should not like to see a great deal more investment in British Rail. However, some of the achievements that have been made belie the tales of woe about the railways which are frequently put about by some Opposition Members.
If I am asked whether what I have said about the east coast main line is related to the Bill, I refer to page 5, clause 5, line 43 which refers to the line between Doncaster and York. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be delighted to know that I am not too far out of order in my remarks.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State discussed level crossings and lifting barriers. If, as occasionally happens, there is a mishap at a lifting barrier, concern is aroused and questions are asked about the safety of those comparatively new devices. The press automatically assumes either that the mechanism was faulty or that the accident was the fault of the train driver. Anybody who has studied the accident reports relating to lifting barriers —mercifully those accidents are few and far between—will find that, generally speaking, amber gambling or flashing red light gambling car drivers are much more likely to be the cause of any distress or accidents at the barriers.
Level crossings are rarely debated in the House. I wonder how many people realise that last year the


Department of Transport contributed £18·5 million to British Rail, through the level crossing grant, but that British Rail had to provide a great deal more money from its own resources to allow roads and railway lines to cross. Through its own resources and finances, British Rail has to provide funds and account for them, although the cost of motoring is borne out of general taxation. That is one of the small points that illustrates the unfairness of comparisons between road and rail transport in this country. That is largely due to the historic way in which we deal with those matters in this House, as well as in the country.
The Bill on page 2 states that
'the Act of 1845' means the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845",
and that
'the Act of 1863' means the Railway Clauses Act 1863".
When one starts to count the number of individual pieces of legislation that are referred to in this small Bill alone, one gains some idea of the obligations that have been laid by Parliament for 150 years upon the operators of our railways. Would that we had taken the same care, concern and time over our attitude to the methods by which we control, or do not control, the traffic on our roads. Through Bills such as this, Parliament sets tight rules and high standards for British Rail which make our railway travel one of the safest forms of transport on earth. However, on our roads we happily slaughter more than 5,000 people a year and maim 250,000 for the simple reason that we refuse to impose, upon ourselves as road users, anything remotely approaching the high standards of safety that we lay upon the railways.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak briefly, and I should like to congratulate my hon. and neighbouring Friend the Member for New Forest. I am happy to support his Bill.

Mr. Peter Snape: Like the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), I shall be extremely brief in commenting on the Bill. I join Conservative Members in congratulating the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on the clear, concise and detailed manner which he habitually adopts to present such Bills. They are traditionally nonpolitical, but not always non-controversial. It is greatly to the hon. Gentleman's credit that the controversy behind some of those Bills is not reflected in the exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.
Like the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), I am somewhat concerned about the clause that refers to the Canterbury accord. I hope that the Minister will re-emphasise the assurance that the addition of the new stretch of railway will not mean that in future British Rail will introduce proposals to close the Canterbury East station.
The Bill is studded with references to level crossings. Many of us will agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Christchurch. The provision, maintenance and upkeep of level crossings costs the British Railways Board considerable sums and protects not its assets, but private and commercial motorists from the consequences of their actions. For once, I do not blame the Government. About 50 per cent. of the total costs of level crossings falls on the board. I suggest to the Minister that we look at that in a non-controversial, non-partisan way.
If the Department coughed up, it would not be political, controversial or partisan. That area would repay further study.
The Bill understandably does not mention automatic crossings. We understand that following last year's fatal accident near Hull some crossings which may have been thought suitable for conversion to automatic crossings will not be converted because of the suspension of those crossings. Again, I must agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch that, although the provision of flashing lights without barriers is regarded as dangerous, particularly in view of that accident, it is dangerous only if motorists ignore the lights. Although we read occasionally in the newspapers about the failure of those lights, one rarely sees any detailed evidence. I know from reading the reports of the Department of Transport's railway inspectorate that their reliability is not often questioned.
A worrying aspect of the suspension of the conversion of crossings of this type is the increased financial burden of maintenance and operating services on these comparatively lightly used stretches of track. I wish to use this opportunity to express our concern that further closure proposals are not introduced because of that additional expense which is largely beyond British Rail's control. Accidents are often caused by the stupidity and carelessness of motorists who appear to believe that they can treat red lights at railway crossings as they treat red lights at road crossings. Occasionally they get a salutary reminder, and often a fatal reminder, that racing a train across a crossing against a red light is even more dangerous than jumping red lights in the normal course of driving round our towns anc cities.
The Opposition welcome the Bill and I hope that when the hon. Member for New Forest replies he will appreciate our concern about the future of Canterbury East. I know that he will relay back to the British Railways Board that we would not wish the welcome provision of a new stretch of line to prejudice the line that already exists.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to some of the points that have been raised.
I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for his support. He and I have been through several such occasions together and I hope that there has been a greater measure of agreement on this occasion than we may have had in the past.
I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) for his kind remarks and speech. He is an acknowledged expert on the railways. Not only is he an expert on the railway system, but a fine photographer of railways arid all things that travel on them. I appreciate what he said.
Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend laid considerable stress on the safety of level crossings, lifting barriers and other systems in use. I assure them both that the board bears that in mind and is extremely anxious at all times to improve the operation of unmanned crossings wherever possible. I assure them that the chairman and members of the board will note their remarks.
My hon. Friend referred to legislation and pointed out that a great deal of it was 19th century. That is absolutely true. It may be worth noting the way in which the legislation has stood the test of time. When we discuss Bills


of this nature we are inevitably taking a snapshot—if I dare say that with my hon. Friend so close — of the railway system, but we are looking, not only at a long history, but at a long future.
If I may, in the good spirit of some television competitions, I shall start in reverse order and deal with matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) relating to clauses 5 and 6. His remarks will be carefully noted by the board and his constituents' problems carefully considered. On clause 5, I remind him that a lesser but significant factor is the condition of bridge 259, carrying the Faversham-Canterbury East line over the route between Chartham and Canterbury West, which will require major engineering work within the next few years. Implementation of the scheme will enable the bridge to be eliminated by removing the superstructure and substituting solid embankment. The bridge has a separate brick arch over Whitehall road which will be retained.
The various works in the scheme include a new railway — work No. 2 — connecting the Ashford-Minster line with the Faversham-Canterbury East line; and a new railway — work No. 3 — following the course of a connecting line between the railways mentioned above which was installed during the last war and removed in 1957, to relink those railways and work in conjunction with work No. 2, creating a route for Ashford-Minster traffic which avoids bridge No. 259.
I can assure my hon. Friend that his other anxieties about individuals who are affected will be carefully noted.

Mr. Crouch: My point is that Mr. Todd and his brother who own Whitehall farm will receive a compulsory purchase order for the land that British Rail takes from their farm and should receive compensation for the fact that their farm is no longer viable by being cut in half by these railway works.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: As I pointed out in my opening remarks, subsection (5) provides an opportunity for aggrieved parties to seek compensation and redress through a tribunal. I hope that that will apply in the case of my hon. Friend's constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) referred to clauses 12 and 25 and I was glad

to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) present. The eloquent way in which my hon. Friend described the problems which may confront his constituents will be carefully noted, especially the point relating to job opportunities and the prosperity of Stone and the surrounding area.
On the matter of clause 25, alternative routes exist and it will be for the petitioners in Committee to make their case. Nevertheless, clause 12—
Stopping up of roads at Alrewas, Staffordshire"—
is worth an additional comment. Fine lane and Roddige lane level crossings are both public crossings. Crossing keepers are employed manually to work the gates. Both crossings are situated on the board's railway between Lichfield City and Wichnor Junction. With a view to improving the economies in the operation of the railway — this is the point to which my hon. Friend referred when he talked about part-time employees—the board proposes to convert the crossing to automatic operation, thus enabling the attendants to be withdrawn altogether. It is intended that the authority for that will be sought from the Secretary of State by means of an order under the Level Crossings Act 1983.
The road over each crossing is approximately 30 ft wide, far wider than the road approaches, and the board wishes to reduce the width of the crossing decks before embarking on any scheme. I hope that that will help to clarify the points which concern my hon. Friend. I can assure him that the petitions from the Staffordshire county council will be carefully considered.
I remind my hon. Friend that the Staffordshire police have made it clear that they do not believe that the road, as at present operated, is suitable for heavy vehicles. Although I listened to what he said about vehicles touching bottom on the bridge over the canal, we are assured by British Waterways that any vehicles which are legitimately on the road should be able to use that thoroughfare perfectly adequately.
We have had an extremely useful and valuable, although short, debate. As I said at the beginning, it marks a milestone in the development of the railway system. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to go forward to its next stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — Motor Cycle Noise Bill [Money]

Postponed proceeding resumed.

Mr. Adley: As I was saying—as they say—perhaps I should repeat the few words I said earlier. I hope that my thanks to the Minister and the Department for the work they have done will be taken as read.
I was saying that there is legislation available at present enabling prosecutions to be brought against individual motor cyclists for having noisy exhaust systems. However, the purpose of the Motor Cycle Noise Bill and the money resolution is to deal with the matter at source, where the total supply can be dealt with by one action, which is clearly not only more time-effective but cost-efficient than the present proposition of the police having to take dozens of individuals to court.
The British Motor Cyclists' Federation supports the Bill and the money resolution as does the Motor Cycle Association. I will not weary the House by reading out endless quotations because this is not a Second Reading debate and, happily, the Bill has already received a Second Reading.
Money for the Bill is needed quite simply to enable trading standards officers to do their job as proposed in the powers they will be given under the Bill. That should relieve the police of a great deal of works.
The Bill concerns non-standard exhaust systems or exhaust systems modified to make more noise. That is the point that has to be stressed. We are dealing with a Bill that is trying to prevent people from deliberately making more noise. The Bill makes illegal the sale or use of unstamped exhaust systems and the trading standards officers, the funding of whom will be provided by the money resolution if the House passes it, will have the power to confiscate unstamped systems, which will obviously cost money. There is a trade at present in approved exhaust systems and one hopes that if the Bill, the money resolution and all its works are ultimately approved by Parliament there will be a growing sale of those approved exhaust systems.
The Bill gives powers to trading standards officers to enter factories to look around and take away exhaust systems which they believe might be contravening the regulations. The relevant clauses mean that they do not have to make a prior appointment but can simply enter the premises.
This is a small but important money resolution for a small Bill. Noise is the curse of modern society and deliberate noise is unacceptable. The internal combustion engine is a major source of noise and pollution and I hope that the House will agree to give its support to this small but worthwhile step.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I wish to support the money resolution which will give effect to the Motor Cycle Noise Bill. The purpose of the money resolution is to authorise limited spending of public money on the purpose of the Bill and to provide finance for weights and measures officers. The explanatory and financial memorandum says:
It is estimated that when the provisions are fully operational the cost of purchasing samples and testing them will initially be in the range of £50,000 to £150,000, but as the provisions take effect, these costs will probably diminish.

The object of that is to enforce the law proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) who should be warmly congratulated on bringing forward his private Member's Bill and the money resolution that goes with it.
The money resolution should be supported enthusiastically by the whole House. The resolution, like the Bill to which it relates, has the paramount aim of improving the quality of life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has just said, noise is the curse of modern society. The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to the modest cost. In a population of about 50 million in the United Kingdom, a sum of £50,000 to £150,000 — [Interruption.] It is a little difficult to address the House with another speech going on on the Opposition Benches. In a population of 50 million, a sum of £50,000 to £150,000 works out at one tenth to three tenths of a penny per head per year. That is a small price to pay for improving our environment and controlling and curbing the curse and bane of motor cycle noise.
The money resolution appears to be open-ended and I hope that the Government will not feel inhibited if some further modest expenditure is required. I should like to explain why. Our so-called civilisation is afflicted by far too much loud and strident noise. There are radios blaring, human beings shouting and yelling, dogs harking, unwanted piped music, noise from aircraft, lorries, cars and, as we are discussing, motor cycles. People's nerves are shattered and their senses are dulled. British common law emphasises the right of individuals to the quiet enjoyment of their homes and gardens but all too often that is marred and blighted by the curse of motor cycle noise.
The money resolution relates directly to this matter as it sanctions provision for the work of weights and measures inspectors to inspect and deal with motor cycle noise. Motor cycle noise is particularly unpleasant. It is not only its volume but the character of the noise which is unsettling and juddering, like a pneumatic drill, whether in residential areas or quiet country lanes. In both that is an outrage to people's freedom to live in peace and quiet by day and, even more so, by night.
My constituents have three special reasons for wishing me to support the resolution. First, there happen to be many main roads or trunk roads with houses along them in my constituency that are used by a considerable number of motor cyclists. These roads include the A305, the A308, the A310, the A311, the A312, the A313, the A314 and, most important, the A316, the great Chertsey road, which links with the M25, along which a substantial number of motor cyclists travel.
Secondly, the resolution is of special concern to my constituents because, in addition to motor cycle noise, they have to suffer aircraft noise. The one nuisance has to be taken with the other. If the resolution is passed and weights and measures inspectors are empowered to deal with the nuisance of motor cycle noise, the totality of aircraft noise and motor cycle noise, which comprises a great deal of noise, would be mitigated. The Government have tried already to mitigate aircraft noise by refusing planning permission for a fifth terminal at Heathrow and by refusing to allow a helicopter link from Heathrow to Gatwick. That is not enough, however, and I hope that the resolution will be passed by the House so that motor cycle noise can be reduced as well.
Thirdly and finally, there is a local problem that could be relieved by the passage of the resolution. I refer to the


long-standing problem of scrambling motor cycles on the Butts farm estate, which is in the borough of Hounslow but adjacent to my constituency, which is within the borough of Richmond. The two local authorities, Richmond and Hounslow, have dragged their feet. The latest information is that they are only considering erecting fences. They need their heads knocked together. There is a need for legal action to be taken with an order of mandamus against the local authorities. Meanwhile, I am glad that the resolution seems likely to be passed. It will tend to make motor cycles quieter and could contribute to the solution of a distressing local problem.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): If it is necessary, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for me to ask for the leave of the House to speak again, I do so.
I used to be responsible for noise regulation under health and safety at work legislation when I was an Employment Minister. I once sneaked a noise meter into the Chamber and during Prime Minister's Questions the reading was 95 dB. Such a noise level would be banned in most factories. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) was not present at the time.

Mr. Snape: The reading would have been 98 dB if he had been.

Mr. Bottomley: I went with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the health and safety research laboratories at Cricklewood, where she was shown some resounding cymbals. Well, one pair of cymbals resounded

and the other pair made only a dull thud when she touched them. The pair that thudded had been sprayed with some noise-reducing aerosol. If I may spread a remark that she did not make, she did not say that she would like to use them on the Leader of the Opposition when he interrupted too frequently during Prime Minister's Question Time.
The money resolution should not be taken as meaning that taxpayers' money will be provided for all the work done by the trading standards officers employed by local authorities. However, regulations made under the main legislation—in other words, the Bill—will be enforced by the trading standards officers. Some local authorities may need to buy silencers for testing, but we have been told that the estimated cost of purchasing and testing will be small. I am not sure whether all the moneys will be provided by Parliament. As the provisions take effect the need for actual enforcement will diminish because suppliers will stop supplying illegal and noisy exhaust systems.
The House and the country will owe a great debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) in bringing forward this sensible, simple and useful Bill. I do not consider it to be a small Bill because the effect of one noisy motor cycle can destroy the environment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has reminded us, over almost a mile. The additional work load is expected to have no significant manpower implications. I commend the resolution to the House and I hope that the Bill is enacted.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Motor Cycle Noise Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act.

Orders of the Day — Hospital Provision (Machynlleth)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo]

Mr. Alex Carlile: My good fortune in obtaining the Adjournment debate enables me to talk about a small but important town in mid-Wales, Machynlleth. It is not a declining town although it is small. It is in an area that, like other parts of mid-Wales, is seeing the growth of small industry. There is burgeoning tourism and many people are coming into the area to live and work because of the beauty that it offers as well as opportunities.
I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales with responsibilitites for the Health Service in the Principality is in his place. I thank him for meeting me last week and having a discussion with me about the Machynlleth hospitals, which are the subject of the debate. I express my gratitude to him on behalf of my constituents for arranging for a petition, which I shall refer to later, to be received by one of his officials in the Welsh Office. I wish to express my gratitude also to that official for his courtesy in receiving the representations that were made to him. I commend that official's courtesy greatly. He listened with great care and made many notes. As the Minister knows, I should have been happier if he had been the person to meet the deputation that came with me to the Welsh Office, but there is no doubt that we were well received and are thankful for that.
In considering hospital provision in Machynlleth, perhaps we should know a little about the town. For centuries it has been an important centre to which people have come to market from a wide area. At one time it was the capital of Wales and the home of the Parliament of Owain Glyndwr. One might say
how are the mighty fallen!
because only last Saturday I held one of my constituency surgeries on the site of Owain Glyndwr's Parliament. What I can say for certain it that the people of Machynlleth hold their democracy at least as valuable now as they did centuries ago with Owain Glyndwr when he held sway in the area.
Machynlleth is a town in need of good hospital provision. It is a busy town with a growing industrial sector. It has a considerable craft industry and some remarkable shops that are perhaps a part of the original Laura Ashley boom. These shops attract people from throughout the area and from far afield. The town has a considerable part of the backbone of the economy of my constituency of Montgomery — a strong agriculture sector—and it has the important business of tourism. This means that in the summer months especially—we try to make the season in Machynlleth as long as possible now—there is a considerable influx of visitors with the result that the population grows considerably. A growing number of hotels, guest houses and camp sites fills up each year.
It is right to observe that whenever planning consent is granted for any new property in or around the town, it is in great demand. It is a town that has an increasing use for an increasing number of public buildings. Recently the remarkable Machynlleth tabernacle was restored, and it is now the tabernacle arts centre. The restoration took place

with private money and the new centre is showing signs of thriving. It brings many people into the town and it will do so increasingly.
The Plas is one of the most attractive and historic buildings in mid and west Wales. There are plans afoot for it, and for new tourist facilities and other public facilities alongside the town's excellent high school. There is the now celebrated Centre for Alternative Technology outside the town.
I say all that not to cause a diversion but to emphasise that Machynlleth is growing and blooming rather than shrinking and wilting.
In a few moments, I shall refer to the views of the people of Machynlleth and to a petition that was presented on their behalf. The people of Machynlleth are not greedy. They have never demanded more than their fair share of the public spending cake. However, I remind the Minister of a snippet of Welsh history that, no doubt, he will recall. The strong community feeling and the ability to identify community needs in that town can be traced as tar hack as the resistance of Caradoc to Agricola's onslaught of mid-Wales. There are independent witnesses of the independence of spirit of mid-Wales and west Wales. I am sure that the Minister, who went to school rather more recently than I did, will remember his Tacitus with enthusiasm. Tacitus described in his Agricola the stout spirit and resistance of the people of mid-Wales.
That may be a rather roundabout and pittoresque way of making a point, but it is an important one. The people of Machynlleth and district are sound judges of their interests. They feel those interests strongly. They state them firmly and they have an impeccable nose for unfairness. Their nose for unfairness, as they perceive it on the matter of the Machynlleth hospitals, was demonstrated most eloquently by the petition signed by nearly 11,000 people, which has already been presented to the Welsh Office.
I seek to make a case in support of the 11,000 signatures. It is not just in support of the voices of the ordinary people of the town and the district but also of the voices of many who are closely involved in the medical profession and in the National Health Service in the area, not least the general practitioners in Machynlleth whose views accord entirely with those of the petitioners. There have been times during the history of the dispute when the general practitioners may not have seemed wholeheartedly to support the case made by the petitioners; but it is quite clear that, when they were given the opportunity to stand back and take an objective view of the situation, they formed the view that the proposals of the Powys health authority, which are currently before the Welsh Office, were not in the best interests of the town and the area.
There are two hospitals in Machynlleth. They are approximately 80 yards or so apart on opposite sides of the main road which leads through the town and towards the coast — towards Aberystwyth in one direction and towards Aberdovey in the other. The newer of those hospitals is about 50 years old. It is called the Machynlleth and Corris district hospital. It was built as a result of public subscription. Some families gave massively towards the construction of the district hospital. What is perhaps more important is that, as I have been told, every family in the district gave something, including not a few widows' mites.
As I live in mid-Wales, I am delighted to say that we who live in mid-Wales — "Powys Paradwys Cymru" —


live somewhat longer than average. Thus, many people living in Machynlleth and other parts of mid-Wales remember well the excitement of the collection of the money and the satisfaction of the building of the hospital.
The other hospital, the Machynlleth chest hospital, started its life, perhaps a little less promisingly, as a workhouse about 125 years ago. More recently, it achieved an enviable reputation as the Machynlleth chest hospital.
It is a pleasure to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts), on the Government Front Bench. He will be well aware of the name and the reputation of Dr. G. O. Thomas, who did years of distinguished work in the Machynlleth chest hospital. Dr. Thomas and others did pioneering work in the chest hospital on the treatment of farmer's lung. They made great strides and became famed worldwide for their work on that dreadful disease. Sadly, there has been an increase in the incidence of farmer's lung in the past few years. It is one of the diseases which the Machynlleth chest hospital still treats.
The chest hospital is a place not only for the treatment of farmers lung. It has become a popular and highly respected hospital for the treatment of all sorts of chest-related ailments. Some of my own friends have had excellent treatment there. I recall a celebrated resident of Montgomeryshire, Mr. R. O. Hughes of Castle Caereinion, who sadly died recently, but was kept alive for many years by the excellent treatment that he periodically received at the chest hospital in Machynlleth. He was a patient who regularly travelled about 35 miles for treatment there. That is an example of the breadth of the hospital's catchment area.
The chest hospital and the district hospital have a wonderful reputation for their nursing care. I have visited them both on many occasions and have seen for myself the tradition of care that is carried on excellently by the present staff and Mrs. Lloyd the matron—if I may be permitted to use the old-fashioned word that is still well-understood in Wales.
The two hospitals are physically close. They work efficiently together. They efficiently share the same catering and the same administration. They have a joint league of friends which has provided a fully-furnished day room in each hospital. It is worth noting that the league of friends has in its possession a sum of money, the size of which is staggering when one considers the size of Machynlleth. I am given to understand that the amount of money which could be provided by the league of friends is in excess of £100,000. They would like to apply that sum of money to schemes of which they approve.
The catchment area, as I have already intimated, is much wider than Machynlleth itself. Indeed, it is much more than simply the whole of west Montgomeryshire or, for that matter, the whole of Montgomeryshire. It includes the old counties of Ceredigion and Meirionnydd. It is difficult to make precise estimates of its catchment area. One submission made to me suggested that it might be as large as 100,000 people. Perhaps so. Perhaps one should err on the lower side and say that the catchment area consists of 50,000 or 60,000 people. It is still substantial and, in my view, greater than has been suggested by the Powys health authority, whose proposals are currently before the Minister.
It is a town where acute medical services are required on a reasonable scale for the whole of the district. We know of many patients who live, for example, in Dolgellau, the county town of the old county of Meirionydd, who, for some quite routine medical treatment, have to travel for long distances over country roads to the town of Wrexham. It is very much to be hoped that we shall not see more people being forced to travel that kind of distance for medical treatment, or to visit their relatives in hospital.
As the Member of Parliament for Montgomery, of course I welcome the decision by the Powys health authority to spend money on the hospitals in Machynlleth to upgrade the provision of medical facilities there. Money is needed, particularly for the chest hospital, some parts of which are in less than excellent condition. However, local people believe—and I share their belief—that there are a number of misconceptions and errors in the plans that are under consideration.
The first of those misconceptions and errors relates to the proposed new geriatric unit, combined with a unit for the elderly mentally infirm—a geriatric-EMI unit, as it has come to be known. Of course I welcome the decision. and so do my constituents, to build a new geriatric-EMI unit and associated day facilities, but having reflected upon the matter and looked at it in great detail we are all of the view that it is quite wrong that those facilities should be placed in the grounds of the chest hospital, rather than on that side of the road where the district hospital is situated.
The site of the chest hospital is entirely unsuited to the provision of those facilities. It is a congested site. On that site there are the comings and goings of the ambulance station. The mortuary's proximity is a problem that causes great concern. And it causes offence in Machynlleth that it is proposed that the geriatric-EMI unit, where some patients will live for years, should have a clear view of the cemetery. In my constituency in mid-Wales, matters of birth and death are viewed very seriously indeed—perhaps in a less cavalier fashion than in some of the modernistic urban areas of England. For elderly people to have to watch corteges proceed on their stately way could hardly drive home an unwelcome point more tellingly.
I believe that those of the elderly who have to spend their last months or years in a geriatric unit are entitled to a better view than that; and that the people of Machynlleth are right in drawing this important detail to the Minister's attention. No amount of landscaping will achieve in any reasonable time the screening that would be required to remove that defect in the proposals.
If all that I were saying was that the site is unsuitable, the Powys health authority would be able to reply—I know that the Minister is constrained tonight because he will have to decide this matter in due course — "But what is your alternative?" The alternative is a good one, and it is readily available.
Whereas the chest hospital is on the more built up side of the town, the district hospital is on the less built r,p side. It is on the same side of the town as the Cartref Dyfi home for the elderly. It is also on the same side of the town, conveniently, as the car park, and on the side of town with some most attractive views.
Next to the district hospital there is a site that already belongs to the health authority. It is a flat site that is large enough for the geriatric-EMI unit. That site could be built upon without any difficulty whatsoever. What is more, it


is a site that is free of obstruction and free of charge to the builders. On one side it has a view of the road. The elderly in the geriatric unit would be able to see the world go by. On the other side it has a view of the mountain. The elderly would he able to see the world in which they had lived their earlier lives. One cannot imagine a better site for the geriatric-EMI unit than that which is supported and proposed by my constituents in Machynlleth—the site next to the district hospital.
If the geriatric-EMI unit were put on the opposite side of the road from the chest hospital, people might ask what would happen to the associated occupational therapy and physiotherapy facilities. That is not a valid objection, either. In the proposed plans of the Powys health authority, the geriatric-EMI unit would have integral gymnasium-type mobility facilities and also occupational therapy facilities of its own. I suggest, therefore, that there would be no extra cost, to speak of, in putting the geriatric-EMI unit on the district hospital site and that if there were any extra cost it would be small and would be amply justified by the overall improvement in the facilities and by the fact that the unit would be in a far more attractive position.
The second of the misconceptions and errors in the plans to which I wish to draw special attention relates to the size of the geriatric-EMI unit. The Powys health authority's proposal is that there should be 14 geriatric beds, four EMI beds and two respite care beds. Those are inadequate numbers to meet the future local need. I have already said that we have a substantial elderly population, because longevity is remarkable in Montgomeryshire. Indeed, 21 per cent. of the population of the catchment area of these hospitals is over 65 years old, a very high figure. Local estimates, including those of the general practitioners who know the state of health of the young and the middle aged within the catchment area, make it clear that a greater number of beds will be needed in the future. Detailed submissions have been made to the Welsh Office on this matter. I suggest that what would be appropriate would be 20 geriatric beds, six EMI beds and two respite care beds.
The third of the misconceptions and errors is the proposal that the general practitioner and maternity beds should be moved out of the district hospital altogether to the existing site of the Machynlleth chest hospital. The effect of that would be that the district hospital would be closed to in-patients. It would probably be closed for ever; indeed, it would almost certainly he closed for ever. There have been suggestions that it would be retained for Health Service facilities, but it is a matter of considerable dubiety as to exactly what those facilities would be and how long they would last.
During the discussions on the fate of the district hospital there have been all sorts of suggestions. At one time the health authority suggested that Powys county council should take over the district hospital for some sort of use—perhaps as a day centre—but Powys county council had not even been asked, and does not have the money to take it over. We must face the fact that if the general practitioner and maternity beds are moved out of the district hospital that will probably be the beginning of the end of that hospital.
At present there are 14 general practitioner beds and two maternity beds in the district hospital. It is proposed that on the chest hospital site there should be a reduction to 12 general practitioner beds and two maternity beds.

One may get the impression from the proposal to close the district hospital that in some way it is an unpleasant place, that it does not meet the needs of the patients and that it falls below an acceptable standard of care. I say to those who feel that. "Go and see for yourself, as I have. See whether there are any complaints from patients or their relations." They will find that there are none.
Many patients use the general practitioner beds in the district hospital during the year. Some are there for relatively minor complaints, others go there for a rest and recuperation, and a third group go there, sadly, for care at the ebbing of their lives when acute medical assistance no longer avails them. Of course, some modernisation would be welcome in that hospital. What hospital other than the brand new would not welcome some form of modernisation? It is a quiet, efficient, homely and attractive hospital. It is wholly unnecessary to replace it entirely. A moderate modernisation would make the Machynlleth district hospital into a general practitioner unit which could be the pride of Powys and of the Powys health authority.
The numbers proposed —a reduction to 12 general practitioner beds—are inadequate. From time to time I have checked randomly through local residents who visit the hospital on a regular basis. On several occasions this winter the district hospital's general practitioner beds have been full. Furthermore, the maternity suite operates satisfactorily. Mothers like being there and there is no need for any substantial change.
On the matter of the provision of acute medical services in Machynlleth, I draw attention to the fourth of the misconceptions and errors in the plan. It is proposed that there should be a reduction from 35 beds with an operating theatre to 15 consultant beds and minor operating facilities. There has been a gross underestimate of the needs for acute and consultant beds, having regard to a number of factors. First, as I have already said, the catchment area has been underestimated. Secondly, there has been such a delay in the completion of the second stage at Bronllys hospital in Aberystwyth that, to quote one consultant physician in the area:
Machynlleth has been a valuable pressure valve in soaking up patients from Aberystwyth.
A point worth mentioning in passing, although I do not wish to exaggerate it too much or put a false perspective on it, is the proximity of the nuclear power stations in north Wales. With that in mind, it is as well that there should be adequate facilities for hospital beds in the area. There is already an operating theatre in the district hospital which serves both hospitals. The operating theatre needs upgrading, but I am informed that the league of friends would be especially interested in examining the possibilities, perhaps with a view to helping towards the upgrading of the operating theatre to more modern standards. Recently, when I checked, the acute beds were full. They were full on two occasions when inquiries were made recently of the occupancy of them.
I shall mention briefly the consultation process that has taken place and led to the recommendations and proposals of the Powys health authority. It has not, unfortunately, been a happy process. I do not regard it as appropriate here to make special criticism of the Powys health authority, but I observe, for I was there, that the public meeting that was reluctantly and eventually agreed to by the health authority on 9 June of last year was a wretched occasion. The presentation of the proposals was done with


great skill and professionalism by those representing Powys health authority, but most people at that meeting felt that the many strong feelings expressed by local residents and representatives of the local community—myself and many others—met a response that was less sympathetic than was appropriate. As a result, many representations on these matters have had to be made privately and, in some cases, fairly desperately.
The local community does not believe that it has had a fair opportunity to make out its case fully until recent weeks. The local community welcomes the fact that in the end the decision will be taken by Ministers in the Welsh Office and hopes that it can be confident that all the representations that it has made and that I have had the opportunity to make tonight will be taken into account. We all look forward to a decision that will be acceptable to the community, consistent with good medicine, and will lead to the early start of building work to improve hospital facilities in Machynlleth.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on his good fortune in securing tonight's Adjournment debate. I congratulate him not just on his success in doing so but on the fact that the business of the House has allowed him to state his case about hospital provision in Machynlleth in rather more detail than would normally have been allowed. If he had had the opportunity in a normal debate to speak at this length, I should not now be replying to him.
I thank him, as I am sure the House does, for the interesting history that he gave us of Machynlleth and the developments that have taken place in the town from the days of Owain Glyndwr, and indeed before that of those of Caradoc and right up to the present day.
However, on checking Dods — perhaps this is my youthful appearance—I discovered that I had received my schooling just a short time in advance of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Therefore, his memory of Tacitus is perhaps even clearer than my own.
In recent months the hon. and learned Gentleman and I have been in correspondence on the subject of Powys health authority's proposals for future hospital provision for Machynlleth. I am grateful for his kind words about the manner in which his constituents, who presented a petition, were received. I have attempted to explain the procedures under which the district health authority can bring about changes of use through the established procedures and the process of public consultation that is required. I welcome the chance to expand on that tonight, bearing in mind the fact that it is not appropriate for me to make any substantive comments, which the hon. and learned Gentleman has already recognised, on the proposals at this stage as they have now been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and that the one-month period for public representations has begun and will conclude on 28 February.
I fully realise the importance of this matter to the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents and I urge them to submit any further representations that they wish to make

as soon as possible. I also assure him that the petition presented to the Welsh Office will be taken into account as part of that exercise.
It would perhaps be useful if I began by sketching out the background to the proposals in terms of the health authority's strategic plan of January 1985 and the current provision at Machynlleth. The strategic plan details the direction to be taken over the 10 years to 1994 in the operation and development of health services in Powys. Changes are proposed in all services, especially in the priority areas of caring for the elderly, the elderly mentally infirm, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped with a change of emphasis from hospital care to continuing care in the community.
The health authority has stated that its philosophy will be to care for people as far as possible within the community and that, in order to achieve that objective, particular attention will be paid to providing community-based consultant services in geriatrics and mental handicap. The authority intends that the development of community hospitals within the district should assist the realisation of those objectives.
The proposals for provision of services take into account the fact that public transport within the county is sparse. The authority is therefore adopting the principle of developing community hospitals which can bring medical services close to small concentrations of people throughout Powys. In relation to the care of the elderly, the strategy retains the target of 10 beds per 1,000 population over the age of 65, but accepts the need to encourage the elderly to remain in their homes and aims to work jointly with the social services department, local housing authorities, other statutory bodies and voluntary groups to provide increased special housing and develop local day centres for the elderly.
Current hospital services in Machynlleth are provided at two long-established sites. The Machynlleth and Corris district hospital is situated in a 50-year-old purpose-built premises about half a mile from the centre of the town on the road towards Welshpool and Newtown. It was built as a cottage hospital in 1935, funded by voluntary contributions from the people of Machynlleth and surrounding areas. The Machynlleth chest hospital occupies an older building, the former workhouse, and is opposite the district hospital. The Poor Law institute made the workhouse available to the Red Cross during the 1914–18 war. The Welsh national memorial hospital trust leased the building in 1921 and eventually bought the workhouse for use as a chest hospital in 1929. In total, the two hospitals have 51 beds run by 54 medical and nursing staff. I also pay tribute to the league of friends and its support for the two hospitals.
The existing bed provision of Machynlleth chest hospital is 35 beds. In making its proposals, the Powys health authority considers that the categories of patients have changed over the years. The chest hospital apparently now caters mainly for elderly patients with or without a chest ailment, and the authority's view is that only one third of the 450 discharges per annum can truly be considered chest cases. In 1985, the average daily number of occupied beds at the hospital was 22·3 out of an average number available of 33·8. I apologise for the technicality of those figures.
The Machynlleth and district hospital provides 16 GP beds, two of which are maternity beds. In 1985 the average daily number of occupied beds was about nine out of an


average number available of 16. Both hospitals cater for patients from the adjoining areas of Meirionnydd and Ceredigion, as well as from Powys. For that reason, Gwynedd and East Dyfed health authorities are involved in the consultation process.
With regard to the current proposals under consideration, I understand that Powys health authority began to give detailed consideration to the future hospital needs of the Machynlleth area in 1985. That was prompted by the announcement by the consultant in chest diseases of his impending retirement, the need to consider how best to provide geriatric facilities with appropriate consultant cover, and the requirement to make the best possible use of medical services in general.
The health authority published its proposals for the future of hospital provision in the Machynlleth area in April 1986. It undertook consultation with members of the public, community health councils, other representative bodies and the neighbouring health authorities of Gwynedd and East Dyfed, but. having failed to reach local agreement on the proposals, the authority has, as I have already said. referred them to my right hon. Friend for decision.
Although I cannot comment on them, it may be helpful if I tell the House the nature of the proposals submitted by the authority. First, it is intended to provide a new 20-bed geriatric and elderly mentally ill unit and associated day hospital facilities on the Machynlleth chest hospital site. It is also intended that the facilities at present accommodated at the district hospital be transferred to the chest hospital to provide 12 GP beds, two maternity beds, a delivery suite and minor operating facilities, that 15 consultant beds be provided on the chest hospital site, that an appropriate level of both consultant and junior medical staff be appointed to manage the service and that the out-patient services currently provided by Dr. J. J. Griffiths at Tywyn, Dolgellau and Bronglais hospitals be discontinued.
The health authority has said in its public consultation document on these proposals that, although it seeks to transfer the acute services from the district hospital to the chest hospital in updated and modernised accommodation, it is intended that the district hospital will be retained for the provision of medical services. The acute psychiatric day hospital that is to be developed in the area can be accommodated in the district hospital along with county council social services provision.
With the expansion of community services in all areas of Powys, the health authority considers that there is a need for day hospital facilities not only for the elderly, but for the mentally handicapped, mentally ill and the physically disabled. In its consultation paper the health authority says that it envisages over the next five to 10 years that the district hospital would be fully utilised as a day hospital, thereby ensuring that provision is made available for the increasing needs that are inherent in any programme of expansion of community services.
The health authority has outlined in the proposals published for consultation its wish to develop a full range of services, with provision more appropriate to the needs of each discipline, to current day standards and beyond. The authority's decision to site the geriatric — elderly mentally ill unit at the chest hospital is based on its view that, over a 15-year period, a full development at Machynlleth should be on a single site. The authority

considers the district hospital site too small and lacking the patient accommodation areas and range of facilities that are available on the chest hospital site.
The authority points out that the new remedial therapy department and out-patient department were built on the chest hospital site for that reason and because it had been expected that the geriatric unit, when built, could be phased into this development with an enhancement of the paramedical departments to provide a day hospital facility.
It may be helpful if I outline the details of the procedures which must he followed before a change in health care provision can be implemented. Responsibility for the detailed planning of Health Service provision and for local consultation on the plans produced rests of course in the first instance with district health authorities. In formulating plans, authorities are required to have in mind the need to make the most efficient use of their available resources which is consistent with the changing needs of patients. Ultimate ownership of all health authority buildings is normally vested in my right hon. Friend and, as proposals for permanent closure or change of use can and do have a significant effect on the local and, as in this case, wider community, special arrangements have been designed to ensure that the public and all local interests are fully consulted and that, in cases of controversy, my right hon. Friend should decide on the proposals in full knowledge of the contending considerations.
Guidance is given to health authorities in Health Service planning paper five, entitled "Procedure for Consultation on the Closure and Change of Use of Health Buildings". The procedure can be summarised as follows: the health authority should first prepare a consultation document giving the reasons for the proposals, which should include the implications for patients, such as travelling and transport, the options which have been considered and the arguments put forward in favour of them. There should be an evaluation of the possibilities of using any redundant facilities for other purposes, and manpower implications must be considered. The relationship between the closure or change of use and other developments in the district's plans should be drawn out.
A three-month period of consultation is the next stage, with comments being invited from community health councils, local authorities, joint staff consultative committees, any other recognised staff organisation not represented on the committees, family practitioner committees, local advisory committees and any other body or person which the health authority considers should be consulted.
The health authority should then reconsider the proposed closure or change of use in the light of the comments received. Should an agreed decision be reached which accords with the guidelines from the Welsh Office, the health authority may proceed with the closure or change of use. If the result is either irresolvable disagreement, as in this case, or a locally agreed conclusion which differs substantially from the original proposals, the authority is required to refer the matter with its recommendations and an outline of the alternative arrangements to my right hol. Friend.
Following referral, in order that members of the public who oppose the proposals may have adequate opportunity to make their views known before a final decision is taken,


a period of one month must be allowed and publicly announced in which individuals or organisations may appeal and make representations against the proposals that have been put forward.
The way in which Powys health authority has implemented this guidance is as follows. Comments on the proposals were invited in April 1986, and therefore the closing date for comments to be made on them would usually have been the end of June. It became clear, however, from early on in the discussions that these proposals would generate a great deal of comment. Powys health authority therefore decided, exceptionally, that in this case the usual timetable would be extended to allow a full discussion of the proposals with neighbouring community health councils and health authorities.
Powys health authority's proposals on the future hospital provision in the Machynlleth area, together with copies of all representations received, and incorporating amendments made by the authority in the light of comments, were presented to my right hon. Friend under cover of a letter dated 17 December 1986. The next stage was then for the health authority to issue a press notice announcing that fact and giving one month from the date of the notice for any objections to its proposals to be sent to my right hon. Friend for consideration before the final decision is given.
Once my right hon. Friend has reached a conclusion on the health authority's proposals, a letter giving his decision and the reasons for it will be sent to the health authority. Copies of the letter will be sent to other people or bodies who have expressed an interest in the matter, including the hon. and learned Gentleman, and these decisions will also be publicised by means of a press notice. I can also assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the points that he has made tonight will be carefully considered before any final decision is taken.

Orders of the Day — Mold Bypass

Mr. Keith Raffan: On 18, 19 and 20 February 1975, almost exactly 12 years ago to the day, a public inquiry was held into the proposed Mold bypass. On 25 July 1977 the then Secretary of State for Wales made the line order announcing his decision on the route. Between then and earlier this year the controversy concerning the road has focused entirely on the timing of its construction.
I first raised the matter with the Welsh Office a month after I was elected, on 19 July 1983. I was told by the then Minister of State, Welsh Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Sir J. Stradling Thomas), that
preparation on the Mold bypass has been accelerated with a view to construction starting before the end of 1988".—[Official Report. 19 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 84.]
I raised the matter again during Welsh questions on 24 March 1986. Two days later, during the Welsh Grand Committee debate on "The Roads Programme in Wales", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales intervened to make the following statement:
I reassure my hon. Friend that we expect the scheme to start on the original schedule—at the beginning of the new period and not at the end of it. We do not anticipate any delay, because we understand the importance of the scheme."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 26 March 1986; c. 31.]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Would my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Raffan: I help my hon. Friend by adding that "at the beginning of the new period" meant the beginning of the time band of January 1988 to December 1990.

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend will be aware that the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee took place on 26 March. He will also be aware that my right hon. Friend did not receive the consultants' report, which I am sure my hon. Friend will talk about, until the autumn of 1986.

Mr. Raffan: That is not the point. My hon. Friend has the chronology out of order. Perhaps I can take the chronology, without my hon. Friend having to intervene again, through to the end of my speech. The vexed question which was at the centre of the consultants' report — the resiting of the A541 roundabout, otherwise referred to as the Buckley road roundabout — was a matter first raised by the Clwyd county council surveyor 12 years ago. If my right hon. Friend was not aware of that central problem when he intervened in my speech on 26 March 1986, one might ask why his officials had not informed him of it. That is one of the questions that I will put to my hon. Friend.
In good faith, I passed on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's assurance to Mold town council. I heard nothing further until I led a deputation from the council to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 1 December 1986. The purpose of that meeting was to deliver a petition that had been signed by more than 4,000 local people, pressing on my hon Friend the urgent need for the construction of the bypass to relieve the town of traffic congestion and provide improved access to the Bromfield park industrial estate and the Nercwys road industrial park. It was then for the first time, like the proverbial bolt fom the blue, that my hon. Friend said that there was a problem over the siting of the proposed


roundabout on the A541 otherwise known as the Buckley road. That was confirmed in a letter that my hon. Friend wrote to me three days later on 4 December 1986. It says:
I can confirm that we are pressing on with the preparation of the by-pass proposals but, as I mentioned to you, the Clwyd County Surveyor has expressed very serious reservations about the location of a new roundabout which it is proposed to provide as part of these proposals where the new by-pass crosses the Buckley Road. The County Surveyor fears that the present location will cause traffic leaving the town in the peak hours to back-up into the town centre. I am sure that you would agree with me that if this were to happen when the new by-pass is open to traffic it would indeed have serious consequences for town traffic which must be avoided. To this end, our consultants were asked to investigate the matter and we received their report a few weeks ago. This recommends the relocation of the Buckley Road roundabout further to the east of the present proposed position.
I and other members of the deputation from Mold town council understandably inferred from what the Minister said to us, and subsequently confirmed in writing, that the problem over the new roundabout had emerged suddenly, that the county surveyor had only recently expressed his reservations and that consultants had subsequently, even more recently, been appointed to look at the problem.
The truth is somewhat different. The county surveyor, Mr. Alastair Donaldson, has sent me copies of correspondence relating to the matter. He expressed his concern about the siting of the new roundabout not last year, not even the year before, but on 16 June 1975 in a letter to the then director of highways at the Welsh Office, Mr. Dennis Hall. On 28 February 1978, when work on the design of the scheme was resumed, Mr. Hall wrote to the Clwyd county surveyor to inform him that consulting engineers, Ward Ashcroft and Parkman, were being directed to look again at the siting of the roundabout and to consult him on the subject.
Let the county surveyor take up the story. I quote from his letter to me dated 9 February 1987:
I did put forward one or two ideas to the Consultants, but no detailed design was done by my staff and at no time have I ever seen any plan produced by the Consultants which either incorporated any of the ideas which I put forward or any of their own ideas for improving the traffic flow at the new roundabout and A549/A541 Junction. Bearing in mind that the County Council are the Local Highway Authority for no less than four roads which are affected by the new Mold Bypass, you might think that rather extraordinary. Indeed, I had to personally attend the Exhibition in Mold to see the larger scale plans of the new proposals since I do not have copies, with the result that I have been unable to consult Members of the County Council to obtain their views.
He eventually received copies of the larger scale plans on Friday 6 February.
All this raises many questions, the detailed answers to which I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister. As the problem over the new roundabout was first highlighted 12 years ago, why did the Welsh Office highways department not resolve the problem long ago? Why did officials wait until after the last minute, knowing that this would delay construction of the road and so render worthless my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's public commitment?
When was my hon. Friend aware that the Clwyd county council surveyor had expressed reservations about the new roundabout not a few months ago but 12 years ago? When was my hon. Friend aware that consultants had been directed to look at the roundabout problem nine years ago? Are the consultants directed to look at the roundabout problem in 1978 the same as those mentioned in my hon. Friend's letter of 4 December? If so, why did

they take so long to report? And why was the Clwyd county surveyor never consulted in advance either on the consultants' report or subsequently on the Welsh Office highways department suggested changes in the alignment of the Mold bypass? If the county surveyor had been consulted, he could have told the present director of highways, Mr. George Mercer, what he told me in his letter of 9 February. He said:
Whilst the roundabout which is in close proximity to the A549/A541 junction has been moved southward to the other side of the junction, the new proposals do not show how the Y junction of the A549 and the A541 is to tied into the new roundabout … Although the Consultants at the exhibition did give me an indication of one or two of the ideas which they have in mind, the fact remains that even with the new line of the Bypass, the original problem to which I drew attention in my letter of 16 June, 1975 has still not been properly tackled.
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Buckley road roundabout problem was raised 12 years ago, then again nine years ago, and then promptly forgotten. When the then Minister of State told me in July 1983 that
preparation work on the Mold bypass has been accelerated
that was presumably "Yes, Minister" jargon for, "We had better dig out the plans and files and have a look at them." Somebody apparently even forgot to do that and it took my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's fulsome commitment in the middle of my Welsh Grand Committee speech last year to flash the amber alert and set the alarm bells ringing.
Then the Welsh Office highways department did a very un-Sir Humphrey-like thing. It flew into a panic. What other conclusion can we draw? After all, when I went with the Mold town council deputation to meet my hon. Friend on 1 December, he said that he had received the consultants' report recommending the relocation of the roundabout only a few weeks ago. He only fleetingly, in passing, mentioned that it would be necessary, as a result, to amend the route. We were shown no detailed large scale plans or elevations. Why? Presumably because they had not been drawn up. It was only at the public exhibition in Mold at the beginning of this month that I or anybody else realised just how substantial and unacceptable would be the realignment resulting from the resiting of the roundabout.
I cannot believe that the suggested realignment was not drawn up after a full survey or considerable thought. As the Clwyd county surveyor has said, it does not effectively tackle the original roundabout problem. It swings unacceptably close to the communities of Mynydd Isa and Bryn-y-Baal. It runs in part through a deep gulley, where it will have a very steep gradient. It severs the two main sewer pipes serving Mynydd Isa which will have to be relaid. It passes through an area where there are uncapped mine shafts. It destroys the only wooded area between Mynydd Isa and Mold. It is based on no traffic survey.
I was told by the director of highways that a traffic survey is to be carried out in April, because that is "an average month", but summer is when congestion is at its worst. We want not a road that is adequate for an average month but a road that is satisfactory in the worst traffic months of the year.
If adopted, the realignment would lead to a delay in construction not of months but of years. My hon. Friend will remember that he assured me and the Mold town council deputation on 1 December that the delay would be only months, and only a few months at that.
The town of Mold needs a bypass to relieve traffic congestion in the town, which is almost impossible to get through in the summer months. It needs it to divert heavy quarry traffic away from the town centre. It needs it to give improved access to, and so increase the attraction of, the Bromfield park industrial estate and the Nercwys road industrial park. That means additional access from the Nercwys road, which is not at present shown on the plans.
Mold needs the bypass where it will do least environmental damage to the town and the neighbouring communities of Mynydd Isa and Bryn-y-Baal. Mold needs a bypass along the lines of the originally proposed route certainly modifying and possibly dispensing altogether with the Buckley road roundabout, which I am told by the Minister's officials is a practical possibility. The new link design criteria should be incorporated as far as possible. We need that bypass to be started, as promised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as near as possible to the beginning of the period 1988–90.
"Mold forgotten by not bypassed" was the understandable slogan used by members of Mold town council when they led the campaign for an early start on the original bypass scheme. We now look to my hon. Friend and the Welsh Office to change that to "Mold not forgotten but bypassed."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) on securing this debate and the eloquent way in which he has presented his case. He has been assiduous in pursuing the interests of his constituents and I recognise the real concern he has about the need for a bypass of Mold. In pursuing that concern I am sure that he has had to confront the problem which Ministers so frequently face in these matters, that is, the need to undertake large projects which are in the public interest but which have quite dramatic and disturbing effects on the lives of individuals. The prescribed statutory procedures are designed, of course, to ensure that full account is taken of all the different interests and views.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of pertinent issues and has posed some searching questions and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy him on those matters. But first, I think that it might be helpful to set my remarks in a more general context — indeed, it is essential that I do so. When the Government assumed office in 1979 we inherited the road construction programme of our predecessors. It was an early priority for the Government to review that in the context of our overall economic objectives. Our first review of "Roads in Wales 1980" made clear the overriding importance of tailoring our major capital investment programmes to suit those objectives. We have sustained a substantial road improvement programme and have since continued to place great emphasis on those important infrastructural improvements as a key factor in our programme for economic recovery. That has been re-emphasised in our subsequent "Roads in Wales" publications in 1983 and 1985.
I make no apologies for setting on record again the fact that since 1979 we have spent over £700 million on improving the road infrastructure. Schemes costing £260 million are currently in progress. New schemes costing £80 million should start in the next financial year and further

investment of £280 million is planned to start before the end of 1990. Much of that investment has been and will be in the county of Clwyd, which embraces my hon. Friend's constituency, and will bring undoubted benefit to its people. Major bypasses were completed east of Abergele in 1981, at Hawarden in 1984, Colwyn Bay in 1985, and Holywell and Bodelwyddan in 1986. Work is in progress on bypasses at Ruabon and Gresford-Pulford and that for Newbridge should be completed later this year. My hon. Friend will not deny the high priority accorded to those schemes.
My hon. Friend knows that in constructing our programme we placed emphasis first on the M4 in south Wales and, more recently, on the enormous task of dualling the A55 across north Wales which will bring undoubted benefits. These massive schemes have, of course, taken the lion's share of our financial and staff resources and this has inevitably meant that other very worthwhile improvements have not been able to progress as quickly as we would have liked. However, the "Roads in Wales" programme continues as our forward commitment and we can look forward to a large number of projects starting within the next three or four years.
Not surprisingly, my hon. Friend has expressed concern about the time taken to progress with the Mold scheme in particular. He will recall from earlier debates, and from correspondence that I have exchanged with him, that the estimated start date for any scheme must be regarded as provisional. There are many factors which affect progress and last year I specifically drew his attention to the important qualification in "Roads in Wales 1985" that the timing of schemes will depend on such things as public reaction to proposals, the ease or difficulty of acquiring land, the complexity of engineering problems, the time needed to complete essential statutory procedures and the availability of resources. Nonetheless, we still expect that the Mold bypass will be started in the time band indicated in "Roads in Wales".
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that a line for the Mold bypass was fixed as long ago as 1977 but, even before the decision letter announcing that was published, our predecessors had announced—on 11 February 1976 — that work on preparing this scheme, along with several others, was being deferred in order to concentrate resources on higher priority projects. Indeed, the decision letter issued in September 1977—about two years after the inquiry — deferred the Mold bypass proposals "indefinitely". However, work was reactivated in 1978, hut, as I mentioned earlier, there were many competing priorities with which to contend. There were other complications.

Mr. Raffan: My hon. Friend rightly says that work on preparing the scheme was resumed in 1978. I said earlier that the consultants were directed by the then director of highways at the Welsh Office to examine the problem of the roundabout then. I know how long preparing road works takes. The gestation period is long. But the central part of my speech was about the roundabout. The county surveyor did not get in touch with the Welsh Office about it last year, but in 1975, and the consultants were directed to look at the problem in 1978. Why has there been deathly silence since then?

Mr. Roberts: I am coming to that. I shall deal with all the points in sequence.
The 1977 decision letter mentioned that new design standards for roundabouts required fresh examination of the junctions included in the planned route for the bypass. But perhaps more significantly, shortly after his appointment as Clwyd county surveyor, Mr. Alastair Donaldson had twice written to the Department—as early as 1975—expressing his concern at the proposed location of the Pont Pentre roundabout on the A549. It was his view that the suggested location for this roundabout would cause serious traffic difficulties and he suggested that the Department should reconsider the location. I understand that he recognised then that his intervention between the date of the public inquiry, but before the announcement of a decision, was difficult and that the statutory process would have to continue, but he made it clear that, as the scheme progressed, he would at every stage be pressing for a reassessment of this proposed roundabout in order that the construction of the trunk road did not impose county road problems on the county. As my hon. Friend knows only too well, the A549 and the A541 are county roads.
These issues inevitably meant complete reappraisal of the scheme and, unfortunately, this coincided with a period when design and other resources were fully stretched in progressing the other elements of the very substantial road programme that I have already described. It was, I understand, not easy to find a solution which would satisfy the surveyor's concerns and provide a bypass which would meet new highway design standards introduced in 1981. These were further to the criteria spoken about earlier as being required to be dealt with in 1978. A further complication to all this arose as a result of the changing traffic patterns resulting from the significant development which occurred in that area, not least at Mynydd Isa and at the Bryn Coch estate.

Mr. Raffan: My hon. Friend says that there was a significant change in traffic patterns. Why was a traffic survey not undertaken at that time? I have been told by the present director of highways that no traffic survey has been undertaken and that one will be carried out over a couple of days in April. Despite the changes in the built-up area at Mynydd Isa, Bryn-y-Baal and the surrounding area, no traffic survey was undertaken.

Mr. Roberts: We had some traffic figures and were content to work on the basis of those at that time. The developments in that area were quite considerable. First, the railway closed on 1 January 1984. My hon. Friend has already spoken about the Mynydd Isa residential development. There was a development on the Bromfield industrial estate. The Bryn Coch residential estate was being developed and industrial development was proposed near Nercwys road. Many of these developments resulted in expansion and, of course, there were changes in the highway network and traffic flows as a result of the Hawarden bypass.
Change has been a continuing factor in the story of the bypass and so too have changes in the criteria for roundabouts and for road alignment. As I said, it was not at all easy to find a solution to these problems. For the moment it must suffice for me to say that, because of these complications and the competing priorities, the revised proposals were not brought forward until the autumn of last year. When he spoke at the Welsh Grand Committee my right hon. Friend was speaking with the best

knowledge that was available to him at the time. My hon. Friend asks when I became aware of various factors. I did not know that changes were recommended until the consultants reported in the autumn of last year.

Mr. Raffan: My hon. Friend has not yet answered the question that I put to him. The consultants were directed to look at this problem as far back as 1978. I presume the consultants were not changed and must have looked at the problem. My hon. Friend's officials must have been aware of the problem and surely they should have made him aware of it before last autumn. Even if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales cannot be expected to be aware of a detail like this, my hon. Friend ought to have been. I do not understand why the consultants' report came as such a surprise to him when they had been specifically asked to look at the roundabout problem. I do not understand either why the Clwyd county surveyor was not directly consulted at that point, especially as the suggested changes affected four local roads for which he has direct responsibility.

Mr. Roberts: The consultants were given various directions at different times from 1978. They were asked to take into account changes in the criteria for roundabouts, road alignments, and so on. Of course, they had to take into account as well all those developments in the area to which I have referred.

Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend answer the point about the county surveyor?

Mr. Roberts: The county surveyor also has his problems with the county roads, but our main interest has obviously been in that road which is the responsibility of the Welsh Office.
My hon. Friend will recall that I outlined the revised proposals to him when he brought a deputation from Mold to see me last December. Although I acknowledge that I was not able to give him details of the new line, at least I was able to tell him that a new line was proposed.
I turn now to the suggestion that the recent consultation had no real purpose because our minds are firmly set on the revised line. My hon. Friend will recognise that I must be careful not to prejudge later decisions, but I can assure him that the consultation is real and that we shall give the most careful consideration to the points being put to us. If the consultation leaflet gave the impression that all is already decided, that was certainly not the intention.
It will be realised, I am sure, that there can be only a limited range of options available in finding a cost-effective solution in this location. The Department's latest proposals have attracted criticism because the line of the bypass is too close to housing at Mynydd Isa, even though it would be in deep cutting in that area, partly for the benefit of residents there. I know that my hon. Friend is keen that we should adhere to the original route, but I am told that this could be done only if there was a radical reappraisal of the Pont Pentre junction, perhaps involving grade separation. That would undoubtedly add greatly to the cost of the scheme and we should have to undertake a fresh economic evaluation of the whole project. Nevertheless, in view of the comments that we have received, I have asked officials to look at the possibilities. An important prerequisite would be an up-to-date origin and destination survey of traffic on roads leading into


Mold better to assess predicted changes in traffic patterns and, as my hon. Friend knows, this is being commissioned in April.
I have seen it suggested recently in some quarters that we have introduced these revised proposals—I emphasise again that they are just proposals—to delay matters. I shall not waste any time on that bizarre suggestion but just say that that simply is not the case.
I have tried to explain why progress on this scheme has not been as quick as my hon. Friend and his constituents would like, but let me reassure him that we do not wish to incur unnecessary delay and, indeed, we would wish to press on as quickly as we can consonant with finding a solution which would be cost-effective and would provide the best answer to all the problems involved. The first priority must be to agree the line for the bypass so that soil surveys and detailed design can proceed. A great deal of work remains to be done, including probably the preparation of amended highway orders, and we have yet precisely to identify the land requirement and secure compulsory purchase powers.
Whichever route we eventually decide to adopt, some of my hon. Friend's constituents will be affected. That is inescapable. Therefore, we can anticipate objections and another public inquiry before final decisions can be reached. It would be unwise of me to speculate on the timetable because there are so many uncertainties, as I mentioned earlier. However, I confirm again that there will be no needless delay on our part. We would hope to meet the timetable indicated in "Roads in Wales 1985."
I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern for early progress on this scheme—we all wish to see that—but I put it to him that, important though rapid progress is, it is far more important that we should achieve a road improvement which will provide the best possible solution at Mold. We should be failing in our duty if we sought to do anything less and I trust that my hon. Friend can accept this.

Orders of the Day — BBC Scotland (Police Raid)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that Mr. Speaker deprecates Adjournment debates of which notice has not been given, but before I open on the subject of the police raid—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has not given notice—he has just stated that—and in view of that—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In view of that, I must remind the hon. Gentleman of what is stated on page 371 of "Erskine May", which I wish to read to him so that he can reflect on it:
For many years successive Speakers have deprecated the introduction of subjects in an adjournment debate unless due notice had been given to the Minister concerned; and on occasion the Chair has expressed this view in forceful terms".
Mr. Speaker has also ruled that it is unreasonable, after 8 o'clock in the evening, to call on Ministers and their advisers to be ready to answer that day an Adjournment debate of which no prior notice has been given to the House. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is now seeking to do something that is contrary to the rulings of previous Speakers. Therefore, I hope that, in the light of what I have read out to him, he will not pursue the matter further.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Part of the difficulty is that I am conscious that successive Speakers have deprecated that. Normally, the rules and manners of the House of Commons are important, but the truth is that those who want to raise Adjournment debates on delicate subjects find, lo and behold, that even if they give the proper notice as they would have wished, and as I would have wished to give this morning, the Government Whips, especially in this Government—I do not exclude the Government of my choice, the Labour Government—make it clear that, somehow or another, debates will be extended. I know perfectly well that if I had given the courteous notice that I would have wished about the police raid on the BBC offices in Queen Margaret drive in Glasgow, I would have found that, by some alchemy, the previous debates would have been extended. Had I given such notice, doubtless the debate on the railway would have gone on and on and on. Once bitten, twice shy, because I have had that happen to me before.
The time of the House of Commons is extremely precious and I am conscious that we have few opportunities. Therefore, I understand that there is deprecation, and the force of it. Nevertheless, although it may be awkward, I insist on my right, and although it may be deprecated by the Chair, my right is at 9.25 pm to raise a subject which is important to many people in Scotland. It is important to put many questions on the record,so—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman what successive Speakers have ruled in this regard. I must repeat that this sort of conduct has been deprecated in strong terms by the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman insists on speaking, I shall have to hear him, but before he rises again I ask him to reflect that he is going clean contrary to successive rulings by successive occupants of the Chair.

Mr. Keith Raffan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I, as a much more junior, less experienced Member of Parliament, can anticipate that business may end early and that there may be room for a further Adjournment debate, surely the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) can also do so? That is a grave abuse of the House and it is an indirect boomeranged insult at himself that he did not anticipate this opportunity. His excuse is clearly spurious.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) saw the opportunity for a second Adjournment debate and applied for one through the appropriate procedure. He made it clear that his debate would be in order and that a Minister would be on hand to answer it and he got clearance for it from Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I can confirm that he saw his opportunity and followed it up in the conventional way.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) insists on addressing the House I will listen to him, but before he rises again I ask him to reflect on what successive Speakers have said about this type of conduct. I ask him to observe the normal procedures and courtesies of the House. If he persists, I shall have to listen to him, but I ask him to reflect on that and not to rise again.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Parliament exists to be used and procedures are surely the servant either of political objectives or what hon. Members believe to be important. If the matter were some trivial issue, I would not behave in this way. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) said that he was a new Member of the House and I must say with complete courtesy that he is being a little naive about the way Whips of both parties work. As soon as they know that a subject will be raised which they do not want raised, to and behold, they wheel in many hon. Members to talk at length—I shall not say "filibuster"—on a particular subject. That has happened to me. Therefore, although this may be a great black mark with Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record certain important questions about a happening which is having reverberations in Scotland. For two hours tomorrow, for example, Scottish journalists will go on strike, for the first time in many cases, about a matter of principle.

Mr. Raffan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is replying on a point of order to what you said or embarking on a speech. He is being a little naive if he thinks that Government Whips can prolong debates endlessly on the obscure but important question of the Mold bypass. There are only so many Members on the Government Benches side, one and myself, who know enough to prolong a debate on it. I was certainly not prevailed on by Government Whips to prolong the debate in any way. I can only think that the hon. Gentleman is being extremely naive if he also thinks that Opposition Whips can prevail on hon. Members to prolong the first Adjournment debate on a hospital at Machynlleth for any length of time. The hon. Gentleman is using a spurious, unfounded excuse to justify an abuse of our procedures. He has no justification for it. He could easily have submitted his Adjournment

debate and the subject of it in time and followed the procedures as I, a much more junior and less experienced Member, did. He has bypassed—I have been talking about bypasses all night—those procedures totally. It is offensive to Mr. Speaker and to all hon. Members that he cannot follow procedures when everybody else does.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member or Delyn talks about bypassing. The truth is that if I had not bypassed the procedures there would be no such Adjournment debate and I shall, therefore, get on with it.
The first question is, did the Scottish Office official who was informed by the Strathclyde police about the raid tell the Secretary of State for Scotland at the first opportunity? If he did not, why not? Did he or she take the view that such a matter as a weekend search of the BBC could wait until Monday morning and routine business? As the police search, at moderated level, was the first item on the 1 o'clock news on Saturday 31 January—

Mr. Raffan: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow is embarking on a detailed discussion about the raids, may I ask whether he has given notice to the Minister responsible, presumably my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that he was going to raise the subject? It is not just offensive to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Chair but to all hon. Members that the hon. Gentleman should be embarking upon this debate in this way. It is a gross abuse and discourtesy and the total antithesis of our democracy and of parliamentary debate that he should not have informed my right hon. and learned Friend. He clearly has not because my right hon. and learned Friend, who is an assiduous Minister and Member of the Cabinet and a highly proficient member of the Government, would have been in his place at the Dispatch Box ready to reply to the hon. Gentleman. Not only has he bypassed the procedures of the House and gone behind the Chair's back in this devious and offensive way but he has not even had the courtesy to inform my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that he was going to embark upon this speech.
The hon. Gentleman has claimed this evening to be talking about parliamentary debate and democracy. Surely, if he wants to air the issues, he should have ensured that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was present in the Chamber to be able to reply to his points so that those reading Hansard tomorrow, I and many of my unfortunate colleagues who are not present in the Chamber could have a balanced view of the subject and a full opportunity to see the different points. My hon. Friends would have been present if they had known that the hon. Gentleman was going to make a speech. He is a powerful orator and we would all have turned up to hear him. Surely the hon. Gentleman wants them to have an opportunity to see the different points and he should have ensured that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was here to reply and put the other point of view. Why did he not do that because—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order with me but this must be brief.
All I can say again to the hon. Member for Linlithgow is that I have expressed clearly the views of successive Speakers about these matters. I have reminded him of the


normal courtesies with regard to Adjournment debates. He will recognise full well that one of the key aspects of our procedures in this place is that if Ministers are to have a reasonable opportunity to answer they must be given notice. The hon. Gentleman has already admitted that he has not gone through the normal procedures. He has not applied for an Adjournment debate to Mr. Speaker, he has not informed a Minister that he wished to raise these matters and I merely repeat that successive Speakers have deprecated such conduct in the strongest terms. I hope, in view of that, that the hon. Gentleman will not persist.

Mr. Dalyell: If we are on the subject of normal courtesies— —

Mr. Raffan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Dalyell: We had better understand that the normal courtesies were not observed in relation to Mr. Pat Chandler and other senior staff of BBC Scotland at Queen Margaret drive.

Mr. Raffan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Dalyell: It is precisely because the normal courtesies have broken down in our society that I am raising these matters on the Floor of the House.

Mr. William Cash: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was only a short time ago—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will remember this well—that the hon. Gentleman attempted to raise the same matter in another Adjournment debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was present on that occasion. It was another Deputy Speaker who said that I needed to have the leave of both the hon. Member for Linlithgow—

Mr. Dalyell: Which I gave.

Mr. Cash: —and that of my right hon. and learned Friend to speak on that occasion. That leave was graciously given, but it seems that the hon. Gentleman, as I accused him on the occasion to which I have referred, is abusing the procedures of the House yet again. He is attempting to raise matters in a most disgraceful manner.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He has raised a further point of order on which I can make no comment. I have made the view of the Chair entirely clear. I appeal again to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) not to persist.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Raffan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: rose——

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Further to that point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to point of order after point of order and I say to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) that manners becometh man. It might help occasionally if words such as "devious" and goodness knows what else were not used.

Mr. Raffan: They are accurate.

Mr. Bermingham: I look to you, Mr. Speaker, to protect a Member who has a point about which he feels strongly and a principle that he holds dear. I notice that the Chair—I say this with great respect—has not sought to protect that Member's right to speak, even though his intervention is said to be an abuse of the processes of the House. The House would be a poorer place—I say this to the hon. Member for Delyn—

Mr. Raffan: rose——

Mr. Bermingham: Please remain seated for a moment. Thou hast spoken enough tonight, dear boy. This House would be a poorer place if the rights of ordinary Members to express a grievance were not allowed to be put into effect.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are not points of order. We cannot have a debate on points of order or on my rulings.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Raffan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Forsyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can offer some guidance on the rights of Back Benchers. It seems that if the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is to persist in defying your clear guidance, second Adjournment debates in future might be threatened. This is a matter of considerable concern. Adjournment debates are one of the few vehicles that are open to Back Benchers who observe the normal courtesies to raise matters of great constituency importance. Perhaps you will guide us on the likely effect of the hon. Gentleman's discourtesy should he persist in going ahead despite your clear guidance and rulings.

Mr. Dalyell: rose— —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Adjournment debates are highly prized. They take place every day at the end of our parliamentary day and they are private Members' time. There are rules and conventions that have been laid down. An hon. Member who has the good fortune to have an Adjournment debate as a result of the ballot, or because of Mr. Speaker's selection, expects a Minister to be present to answer the debate. Ministers cannot be present to answer debates unless notice has been given. It is for that reason that the first Adjournment debate is arranged in the traditional way with which the House is familiar. There are well-established procedures and courtesies laid down for any further Adjournment debate. If those courtesies are not observed—I merely repeat this for the hon. Gentleman once more—successive Speakers have strongly deprecated the sort of conduct in which he is persisting. I appeal to him again not to pursue it. If he insists on pursuing it, I shall of course have to hear him.

Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty is that we are talking about conduct. The conduct and standards of the House have gone down. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) mentioned that there had been a previous debate. During


the previous debate we thought that no Minister had heard about the BBC raid until he heard about it on the news at 1 o'clock on Saturday. As between 2 February, when he made his first statement, and 13 February, somehow, in the middle of a Friday, my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) heard that the Secretary of State for Scotland was indeed told that this was a breakdown of trust—

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall listen to points of order if they are points of order. I do not think we need to go around the course yet again. If there is a different point of order, I shall listen to it.

Mr. Raffan: I seek your guidance, once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) rose, he said, to protect the rights of hon. Members. I ask you to protect the right of an hon. Member— my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, if he had been given notice of the debate, would have been here to reply to it. How can we possibly have an Adjournment debate, as opposed to an Adjournment monologue, if my right hon. and learned Friend is not here to reply to it? It clearly is an abuse of the House.
There is nothing democratic about the lack of procedure upon which the hon. Member for Linlithgow has embarked. He is trying to grab a few cheap headlines by ensuring that a balanced view is not presented both to the House and the country as a whole by ensuring that my right hon. and learned Friend is not here to reply to his speech point by point. What the hon. Member for Linlithgow cannot stand and dislikes more than anything else is a rebuttal of the spurious points that he makes in debates such as this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All that I can do is to repeat the point that I have already made on several occasions about the strong views that have been expressed by successive Speakers, but I have no power to prevent the hon. Gentleman from addressing the House if, in spite of what I have said, he intends to do so.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Michael Forsyth: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall hear the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

Mr. Dalyell: It will be of benefit to the House if I ask some questions. Did the official still think, throughout the Saturday and Sunday, that there was no need to contact his or her Secretary of State?

Mr. Forsyth: rose——

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am listening to a point of order.

Mr. Forsyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have already raised with you the rights of Back Benchers. As I understand it, if any hon. Member makes an application to Mr. Speaker for an Adjournment debate which has already been applied for by another hon. Member he is refused. The hon. Gentleman has not only not had the courtesy to inform the Secretary of State that

he planned to raise this matter but has ignored Mr. Speaker. What will be the position—I do not know whether any hon. Member will be in this position—of an hon. Member who may have asked for an Adjournment debate on this subject in the normal way? Surely these procedures have been ignored, and this could create considerable embarrassment and difficulty. Where do we stand on this matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that I can deal with a hypothetical situation. I understand the point that the hon. Member has made, the difficulties that could easily arise and the possible threat to the high value that the House places on Adjourment debates. As I have said, I have no power to refuse to listen to the hon. Gentleman if he persists in addressing the House.

Mr. Dalyell: The only likely explanation—

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have been reading "Erskine May", for reasons that may become apparent. On page 290 it deals with motions for the Adjournment of the House. Following the point that you made with regard to the importance of these questions, it states unequivocally that
The motion 'That this House do now adjourn', moved when there is no question before the House, is a form of substantive motion, but is more conveniently treated apart. The substantive motion for the Adjournment may be used for discussing many subjects other than the termination of a sitting. Once such a motion has been agreed to, a sitting is necessarily terminated; but it frequently happens that an adjournment motion is moved without any intention of pressing it to a conclusion, and it is consequently withdrawn when its purpose has been served".
My point is that questions relating to the Adjournment of the House are frequently governed by motions. It may be that on this occasion no motion is being moved. On the other hand, this is an example of an hon. Member quite clearly, without regard for the rules of the House, trying—as I accused him the other day—to grab the headlines to raise a question that he knows perfectly well he would be unable to raise in the normal course of events, and without a Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), being present. The embarrassment that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is seeking to inflict upon the House, and that we have every intention of preventing him from inflicting, is a filibuster of its own kind. It is an abuse of the procedures of this House and we have absolutely no intention of allowing the hon. Gentleman to drag the procedures of this House through the mire of his own speculations and groundless allegations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to point out to him and to the House that we are on the Adjournment motion. That is one of the dificulties that we are facing.Mr. Dalyell.

Mr. Dalyell: It was all part of the preordained plan—

Mr. Raffan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of what you have just said and in view of the valid point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), I wonder whether I may ask you to ask Mr. Speaker to make a ruling on this particular event. The position is not clear. The Chair has made it quite clear that it deprecates the kind of behaviour upon which the hon. Member for Linlithgow has embarked—a total bypass of the procedures of this


House, going behind the Chair's back and not ensuring that a member of the Cabinet is present to reply to the debate. As this is such a grave abuse of our procedures and such an offence to the Chair and to hon. Members, surely I am right in asking that tonight's disgraceful events should be brought directly to the attention of Mr. Speaker so that he can make a clear ruling to the House and we are not faced once again with such an appalling, disgraceful and embarrassing situation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly report to Mr. Speaker what has happened tonight. I cannot comment further on that, but again I remind the House that the Chair and all hon. Members are bound by the rules and conventions of this House. If they are not correctly observed, it will be a very poor day for the House of Commons.

Mr. Dalyell: Was there perhaps some misunderstanding between the civil servants of the kind with which we became so familiar—

Notice being taken that Strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 8.

Division No. 92]
[9.54 pm


AYES


Nil


Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Michael Forsyth and



Mr. Keith Raffan.





NOES


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Dalyell, Tam
Wallace, James


Faulds, Andrew



Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. John Maxton and


Robertson, George
Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

It appearing from the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided.

And it being after Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, it being then four minutes past Ten o'clock, till tomorrow.

Adjourned at four minutes past Ten o'clock.